BACKGROUND:
Dual mobility (DM) cups of mobile polyethylene were introduced to prevent total hip arthroplasty (THA) dislocation, but no large series with this design to treat recurrent instability have been reported.

PURPOSE:
Our retrospective investigation ascertained the efficiency of DM cups in correction of recurrent dislocation and assessed any adverse effects.

METHODS:
One hundred eighty THAs with recurrent instability were revised to DM cups in 180 patients (mean age, 67.4 ± 11.7 years; range, 19 to 92 years). Thirty-one patients (17.2%) underwent at least one earlier THA revision, and 15 (10.3%) incurred non-union of the greater trochanter. Of the initial group in 2009, 145 patients had completed evaluations which included assessment of the Harris Hip Score and a radiographic assessment at a mean follow-up of 7.7 ± 2.2 years (range, 4 to 14 years). The rate of survival was calculated considering any reason for revision as failure.

RESULTS:
At follow-up, Harris hip score was 83.9 ± 16.1 (range, 21 to 100). Dislocation of the large articulation occurred in seven hips (4.8%), and only two recurred (1.4%) (one requiring additional revision). In addition, two intra-prosthetic dislocations of the small articulation (1.4%) were observed and needed revision surgery. The large number of earlier surgeries and non-union of the greater trochanter were related to recurrent instability. Two cups (1.4%) showed signs of definite loosening; six (4.1%) presented signs of possible loosening. Twenty-nine hips manifested femoral or acetabular osteolysis (20%), but only three were severe. Eight-year survival rate considering revision for any reason was 92.6% (95% CI, 85.5-96.4%).

CONCLUSIONS:
This series indicates that DM cups are a viable option to treat recurrent THA instability. Their design provides a low risk of recurrent instability without increasing mechanical complications.





Polls results
1

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
100% Article relates to my practice (2/2)
0% Article does not relate to my practice (0/2)
0% Undecided (0/2)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

50% Yes (1/2)
50% No (1/2)
0% Undecided (0/2)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/2)
100% No (2/2)
0% Undecided (0/2)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/2)
0% Level 2 (0/2)
100% Level 3 (2/2)
0% Level 4 (0/2)
0% Level 5 (0/2)