BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this systematic review is to analyze the outcomes of dual-mobility (DM) cups in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Specifically, we evaluated the following: (1) all-cause and aseptic survivorship rates; (2) dislocation rates; (3) complications; and (4) clinical outcomes reported using validated health status measures.

METHODS:
A comprehensive literature search included studies that reported the following: (1) re-revision rates, (2) complications, and (3) clinical outcomes following DM use in revision THA. The following exclusion criteria were used: (1) studies that did not stratify their analysis between primary and revision THA, (2) studies that utilized off-label techniques, (3) review articles, (4) case studies, (5) basic science articles, (6) non-English language reports, and (6) reports on patients who underwent surgery before 2010, in order to reflect modern DM implants use and technology. A total of 9 studies were included in our final analysis.

RESULTS:
Aseptic and all-cause survivorship rates were 97.7% and 94.5%. Prevalence of dislocation was 2.2%, and 0.3% for intraprosthetic dislocation. Meta-analysis comparing DM to fixed-bearing prostheses demonstrated a significantly lower odds of dislocation in the DM cohort (odds ratio 0.24, P = .002). Complications occurred in 7.4% of revision THAs with DM cups, while infection rates totaled to 3.3% of cases. Studies comparing outcomes using Harris Hip Scores did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in improved postoperative scores (P > .05).

CONCLUSION:
DM cups have demonstrated excellent survivorship, low dislocation, and overall complication rates. Therefore, it can be considered a safe and effective option, particularly in the high-risk patients who undergo revision THA.



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 (3/3)
0% Article does not relate to my practice (0/3)
0% Undecided (0/3)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

66% Yes (2/3)
33% No (1/3)
0% Undecided (0/3)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/3)
100% No (3/3)
0% Undecided (0/3)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

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