DUAL-MOBILITY IMPLANTS IN PRIMARY AND REVISION TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Abstract

In this study, we examined the impact of dual-mobility (DM) versus fixed-bearing (FB) implants on outcomes following total hip arthroplasty (THA), a common and successful operation. We examined all-cause revision, revision due to dislocation, postoperative complications and functional scores in patients undergoing primary and revision THA.A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines, and was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42023403736). The Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to 12th March 2023. Eligible studies underwent meta-analysis and methodological assessment using the ROBINS-I tool. Data were pooled using a random-effects maximum-likelihood model.Eight comparative, non-randomised studies involving 2,810 DM implants and 3,188 FB implants were included. In primary THA, the difference in all-cause revision was imprecise (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.25–2.72), whilst the DM cohort had a statistically significant benefit in revision due to dislocation (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02–0.28). In revision THA, the DM cohort showed significant benefit in all-cause revision (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31–1.05) and revision due to dislocation (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04–0.53). DM implants were associated with a lower incidence of implant dislocation and infection. Functional outcome analysis was limited due to underreporting. No intraprosthetic dislocations were observed.The results suggest that contemporary DM designs may be advantageous in reducing the risk of all-cause revision, revision due to dislocation, and postoperative complication incidence at mid-term follow-up. Further high-quality prospective studies are needed to evaluate the long-term performance of this design, especially in revision cases.