Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open access
  • Published:

Comparing dislocation rates by approach following elective primary dual mobility total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume 18, Article number: 226 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Dual mobility components can be implanted during total hip arthroplasty (THA) for primary osteoarthritis via a direct anterior approach (DAA), anterolateral approach (ALA), direct lateral approach (DLA), or posterior/posterolateral approach (PLA). This review compares dual mobility hip dislocation rates using these approaches for elective primary THA.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for articles published after January 1, 2006 that reported dislocation rates for adult patients after primary THA with dual mobility implants. Articles were excluded if they reported revision procedures, nonelective THA for femoral neck fractures, acetabular defects requiring supplemental implants, prior surgery, or ≤ 5 patients. The primary outcome was hip dislocation rate. Secondary outcomes included infection, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and Postel-Merle d’Aubigné (PMA) score.

Results

After screening 542 articles, 63 met inclusion criteria. Due to study heterogeneity, we did not perform a meta-analysis. Eight studies reported DAA, 5 reported ALA, 6 reported the DLA, and 56 reported PLA. Study size ranged from 41 to 2,601 patients. Mean follow-up time ranged from 6 months to 25 years. Rates of infection and dislocation were low; 80% of ALA, 87.5% of DAA, 100% of DLA, and 82.1% of PLA studies reported zero postoperative dislocations. Studies reporting postoperative HHS and PMA scores showed considerable improvement for all approaches.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing primary THA with dual mobility implants rarely experience postoperative dislocation, regardless of surgical approach. Additional studies directly comparing DAA, ALA, DLA, and PLA are needed to confirm these findings.

Background

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common treatment for patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA). THA procedures have been projected to increase 174% from 2005 to 2030 in the United States [1]. Hip dislocation after THA is a leading cause of early surgical revision [2], and prevention of this complication is necessary to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. Dual mobility components have been demonstrated to reduce rates of postoperative dislocation compared to standard cup implants in patients undergoing THA [3,4,5], although surgical approach during implantation may also affect clinical and functional outcomes [6,7,8].

The dual mobility cup concept was first developed in 1974 by Bousquet and Rambert [9]. A dual mobility construct has two points of articulation: the first interface is between small femoral head articulating within a larger mobile head, while the second interface is the larger head articulating with the acetabular component. This design has been demonstrated to increase the maximum hip range of motion prior to dislocation thus improving hip stability [10, 11]. Many studies have demonstrated the low dislocation rate utilizing dual mobility implants [12, 13]. Dual mobility has gained popularity for high-risk dislocation patients including those with revision surgery, osteonecrosis, hip dysplasia, femoral neck fracture, neuromuscular disorders, elderly, obesity, spinal fusions, and variability between functional spinopelvic relationship.

Dual mobility constructs may be implanted utilizing any surgical approach. The most common approaches include the direct anterior approach (DAA), anterolateral approach (ALA), direct lateral approach (DLA) or posterolateral approach (PLA). The DAA uses the natural intermuscular interval between the tensor fascia latae (TFL) and sartorius muscles [14]. The ALA begins farther laterally and uses the interval between the TFL and gluteus medius to expose the hip capsule [15]. The DLA begins laterally splitting the gluteus medius and vastus lateralis. The PLA does not follow a true interval to expose the hip posteriorly [16].

While the PLA has been the most commonly utilized approach, a major concern has been an increased risk for dislocation [17,18,19], especially without capsular and external rotator repair [20]. Studies have shown that the DAA, ALA, and DLA may lead to uniformly improved stability and earlier recovery versus the PLA [17, 21, 22], which has led to a more recent increase in utilization of dual mobility implants while performing the PLA, especially in high-risk patients [23].

At present, research directly comparing surgical approaches in patients receiving dual mobility implants is limited. This systematic review compares rates of dislocation by surgical approach in patients receiving dual mobility implants for elective primary THA.

Methods

Search Strategy

This study was performed in compliance with Preferred Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) [24]. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases (or their application programming interface [API]) were used to identify potentially relevant studies published between January 2006 and January 2023. Nested Knowledge software (AutoLit; Nested Knowledge, St. Paul, MN, USA) was used to perform all searches, screening, and data extraction. The following search string was used: "total hip arthroplasty" AND "dual mobility" AND "dislocation". Additional studies were added based on expert recommendation. Two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts; remaining articles underwent full text screening. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

For inclusion, articles had to describe rates of hip dislocation in adults (> 18 years of age) following elective primary THA with dual mobility implants via DAA, ALA, DLA, or PLA. Studies with multiple approaches were included if they stated the outcomes by approach. Articles were excluded for the following reasons: nonelective THA performed for femoral neck fracture; revision THA; periacetabular defects requiring supplemental implants; prior surgery; non-clinical study (in vitro, in vivo, in silico, animal, cadaver); case reports or case series with ≤ 5 patients; review or meta-analysis; editorial, letter, or commentary; abstract, protocol, or technical note; insufficient details on the intervention or outcomes; duplicate patient population; not relevant to the topic; not available in English; and full text unavailable. Study cohorts for primary THA indications were extracted and included when outcomes were clearly differentiated (i.e., excluding femoral neck fractures and revision THA).

Risk of bias

The Joanna Briggs Institute forms for case series [25] and cohort studies [26] were used to assess risk of bias of the included studies. Individual questions pertaining to study design and execution were addressed with “yes,” “no,” “unclear,” or “not applicable” responses based on the quality of reporting in the manuscript and information from the authors. Two independent reviewers rated each question, while a third reviewer adjudicated discrepancies and rated studies as high, moderate, or low risk of bias.

Data collection

Patient baseline characteristics were collected as available, including age, sex, and indication for THA (e.g., osteoarthritis). The primary outcome of interest was rate of dislocation. Secondary outcomes included infection, all-cause mortality, and hip function as assessed by the Harris Hip Score (HHS) [27] and Postel-Merle d’Aubigné (PMA) score [28]. Patient baseline characteristics and outcome scores were only presented when representative of the entire cohort included (i.e., no patients removed for excluded surgical indications).

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics and outcomes are summarized using frequencies (n/N), percentages (%), mean ± standard deviation, median, and range, as appropriate. Due to heterogeneous study designs and patient populations, variable study quality, and incomplete reporting, meta-analyses were not performed, and no inferential statistics were summarized for this review.

Results

Search results

A total of 521 records were identified using the search strategy, and 21 additional records were added by expert recommendation. After screening based on title and abstract, 197 articles were retrieved for full text review, and 63 articles met all inclusion criteria [2, 10, 29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90]. Full details of study attrition with exclusion reasons are shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA diagram showing study attrition

Full size image

Risk of bias

Full details of the risk of bias assessment are available in Additional file 1: Table S1. Four studies (6.3%) were considered high risk of bias, and 18 (28.6%) were considered moderate risk. The remaining 41 studies (65.1%) were deemed low risk of bias. All studies were ultimately recommended for inclusion.

Study and patient characteristics

Of the 63 articles included, 11 reported outcomes for two different approaches in the same study [10, 33, 40, 43, 49, 50, 52, 69, 79, 84], and one study reported three approaches [74], resulting in 75 total study arms. Eight studies reported the DAA, five reported the ALA, six reported the DLA, and 56 studies reported the PLA (Table 1). Cohort size ranged from 6 to 2601 subjects [69, 70]. Some studies reported outcomes per number of operated hips while others reported per number of patients. In studies reporting an indication for surgery, the most common indications were osteoarthritis, osteonecrosis, hip dysplasia, and post-traumatic arthritis (Table 2).

Table 1 Study characteristics and demographics
Full size table
Table 2 Patient clinical characteristics
Full size table

Rate of Dislocation

Mean follow-up time varied widely across studies, ranging from 6 months [42] to 25 years [73]. Four studies reported only a minimum follow-up, which ranged from ≥ 1.5 months [58] to ≥ 3 years [49]. Dislocation rates were low regardless of approach or length of follow-up. Rates ranged from 0 to 0.9% for the ALA, 0–1.8% for the DAA, 0% for the DLA, and 0–4.7% for the PLA. Zero dislocations were reported in 4 of 5 ALA studies (80%), 7 of 8 DAA studies (87.5%), 6 of 6 DLA studies (100%), and 46 of 56 PLA studies (82.1%) (Table 3). The two studies with dislocations following DAA and ALA reported rates of 1.8% and 0.9%, respectively [84, 87]. The highest dislocation rate for PLA was 4.7% [60].

Table 3 Hip dislocations by intervention type
Full size table

Secondary outcomes

Postoperative infection rates were similarly low across approach types. The highest reported infection rate was 2.9% for the ALA [64], 1.3% for the DAA [32], 4.2% for the DLA [59], and 5.5% for the PLA [89]. Mortality rates ranged widely across studies. One ALA study reported mortality, which was 37.1% at 12.6 years [87]. Three DAA studies reported mortality rates ranging from 1.1% and 1.2% at 14 and 15 months, respectively [33, 61], to 4.2% at 81.2 months [32]. Mortality rates for the PLA ranged from 0.0% at 38.2 months [82] to 43.7% at 25.3 years [73].

HHS scores were reported in 40.0% of studies, and PMA scores were reported in 22.2%. When both pre- and postoperative values were reported, HHS and PMA scores improved considerably for all approaches. More details on secondary outcomes are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Secondary outcomes by intervention type
Full size table

Discussion

This systematic review found that the use of dual mobility implants during primary THA results in low rates of postoperative hip dislocation regardless of surgical approach or length of follow-up. Sixty-three of the 75 cohorts (84.0%) reported zero dislocations at latest follow-up, demonstrating high rates of procedural success. When reported, infection rates were similarly low across all approaches, and functional hip scores (HHS and PMA) universally showed improvement from baseline to final follow-up. Importantly, this review highlights the limited available literature that report outcomes associated with the ALA, DAA, and DLA compared to the PLA. While this imbalance is expected given the historic popularity of PLA, this systematic review underscores the need for additional studies directly comparing ALA, DAA, DLA, and PLA with dual mobility implants to provide evidence for why they are not utilized more frequently for primary THA. Dual mobility implants have shown variable success in preventing dislocation in high-risk patients [91], but early recommendations to reserve dual mobility implants for patients at high risk of dislocation and salvage procedures were established from research on the first models of dual mobility cups. These implants have improved significantly since this early research to the point that their indications should be reevaluated with a fresh perspective [92, 93].

While several other systematic reviews and meta-analyses have analyzed surgical approaches in THA, the present review is the first to specifically investigate whether surgical approach in THA using dual mobility constructs affect clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary THA. As in our current study, previous reviews have found that postoperative complications and dislocation rates are generally low following THA in non-high-risk populations, and that utilizing the DAA, ALA, DLA, or PLA may result in similar long-term outcomes [6, 94,95,96,97]. For example, a 2017 systematic review of 42 studies found that functional hip outcomes (e.g., HHS) were significantly improved for DAA in the short-term (6 weeks postoperatively), but differences were not generally sustained past that point [6]. Similarly, a meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including 377 hips operated on via DAA and 377 via PLA, found that DAA patients had significantly reduced pain scores ≤ 72 h postoperatively, but complications and dislocation rates were low among all groups at one-year follow-up [95]. The current review contributes to this discussion with evidence that long-term complications such as dislocation and infection are similar between all approaches following THA with dual mobility implants in primary THA for low-risk populations.

While many studies have reported similar rates of long-term complications, debate still exists on the potential short-term benefits of different approaches to THA patients. For example, one RCT comparing 28 DAA and 27 PLA patients reported that functional outcomes were better after DAA in the first 3 months postoperatively (HHS 76.7 vs. 68.7; p = 0.08) [8], while another study compared 35 DAA and 37 PLA patients and found that functional outcomes favored DAA at 6 weeks postoperatively [98]. In contrast, a study of 20 patients undergoing bilateral, same-day THA (one hip with DAA, the other with PLA), found HHS and other functional scores were not significantly improved for either approach at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, or 12 months postoperatively [99]. Similarly, an RCT of 50 ALA and 50 PLA patients reported that functional outcomes did not differ at 3-month follow-up [100]. Given these contradictory findings, additional research is needed to determine the short-term benefits of different surgical approaches following THA.

Researchers agree that approaches like the DAA involve a learning curve for surgeons, as evidenced by surgeons with less experience having longer operative times [6, 8, 97, 99,100,101] and higher rates of perioperative complications [33]. Fortunately, this learning curve reduces with experience and the risk of revision normalizes after as few as 20 procedures [102, 103]. This suggests that experienced surgeons at high volume centers likely have better outcomes. Additionally, multiple studies have affirmed that introducing dual mobility constructs with DAA THA presents no further risk to patients or difficulty for surgeons [33, 101], with some authors particularly optimistic that this “combination” intervention may minimize dislocations [104]. In light of conflicting evidence around short-term benefits, researchers have proposed differing policies on whether and when to implement anterior approaches for THA. Batailler, et al. suggest that DAA THA with dual mobility cups may be particularly advantageous for populations at high risk for postoperative dislocation [33]. Likewise, Thürig et al. favor DAA for elderly patients due to the potential for earlier recovery and weight-bearing [105]. Others state that the approach taken for THA should simply be based on surgeon preference and experience [98, 100]. As the debate continues, additional research is warranted to inform policies and ensure optimal treatment for different patient populations.

High-risk dislocation populations have increased risk of complications including PJI, revision, mortality, and dislocation. Risk factors for PJI include younger age, AVN, FNF, smoking, ASA ≥ 2, and diabetes. While one study by Viricel et al. [89] described an infection rate of 5.5% with 91 PLA THA, 68% of their cohort was considered high-risk for dislocation, including younger patients (mean age = 44), 60% smokers, and 25% with alcoholism. Our paper does not suggest PJI correlation with dual mobility and PLA as the above cohort inclusion criteria had known risk factors for PJI, yet notably this study had zero dislocations, which supports use of dual mobility in high-risk populations.

A residual question that remains is dual mobility cost effective in all patients. A large French registry of 80,405 patients demonstrated 0.4 relative risk of dislocation with dual mobility compared to conventional fixed bearing [106]. They looked at the cost of subsequent dislocations, revisions, and rehabilitation-unit admissions concluding through Markov analysis that the routine use of dual mobility would save 28.3 million Euros per 100,000 THA performed. Additionally, Barlow et al.[107] noted in 2013 that the average dual mobility cost $435 dollars more than fixed bearing. They also performed a Markov analysis demonstrating that the dual mobility implant was cost saving even at a rate of $1023 more than fixed bearing and cost effective up to a rate of $5,287. However, noted that was not cost effective if the unforeseen failure was above 0.29%.

Some studies have questioned the in vivo function of the dual mobility implants [92]. There have also been concerns raised about polyethylene wear, intra-prosthetic dislocations, and corrosion between articulating liners and acetabular components. Well-designed comparison outcome studies and further cost-effective analyses are in need to determine the overall utility of routine use of dual mobility constructs [108].

Limitations

This review has several limitations. We included cohorts of larger studies when the outcome was clearly defined by surgical approach and surgical indication for dual mobility THA. Studies were excluded if they described dislocations that could not be attributed to a specific approach or preoperative diagnosis (e.g., studies that included patients with both primary osteoarthritis and femoral neck fractures, but only reported an overall dislocation rate). In doing so, a biased proportion of studies with zero dislocations may have been included, as studies reporting dislocations were more likely to be excluded for this reason. Additionally, included studies had widely varying lengths of follow-up, which makes it difficult to directly compare dislocation rates and other outcomes. The aging patient population undergoing THA is generally expected to have a higher risk of postoperative mortality (which was observed in this review), but without statistical analysis of death as a competing risk, dislocation rates were likely disproportionately low.

Unfortunately, due to considerable heterogeneity, variable quality reporting, and lack of patient-level data, this study did not stratify outcomes by surgical indication or aggregate outcomes for inferential statistics. There was also heterogeneity in reporting outcomes per patient versus per hip, which complicates direct comparisons.

Conclusions

Total hip arthroplasty with dual mobility implants for primary osteoarthritis results in low rates of postoperative dislocation and infection and improved HHS and PMA scores regardless of surgical approach or length of follow-up. Additional studies directly comparing DAA, ALA, DLA, and PLA are needed to assess the relative advantages of these different interventions more effectively.

Availability of data and materials

All data were contained in the text and charts of published articles.

Abbreviations

THA:

Total hip arthroplasty

OA:

Osteoarthritis

DAA:

Direct anterior approach

ALA:

Anterolateral approach

DLA:

Direct lateral approach

PLA:

Posterior/posterolateral approach

HHS:

Harris Hip Score

PMA:

Postel-Merle d’Aubigné

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

References

  1. De Martino I, D’Apolito R, Soranoglou VG, Poultsides LA, Sculco PK, Sculco TP. Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty using dual mobility acetabular components: a systematic review. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-b:18–24. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.99b1.Bjj-2016-0398.R1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Assi C, El-Najjar E, Samaha C, Yammine K. Outcomes of dual mobility cups in a young Middle Eastern population and its influence on life style. Int Orthop. 2017;41(3):619–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3390-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. You D, Sepehri A, Kooner S, Krzyzaniak H, Johal H, Duffy P, et al. Outcomes of total hip arthroplasty using dual mobility components in patients with a femoral neck fracture. Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(7):811–21. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B7.BJJ-2019-1486.R1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gonzalez AI, Bartolone P, Lubbeke A, Dupuis Lozeron E, Peter R, Hoffmeyer P, et al. Comparison of dual-mobility cup and unipolar cup for prevention of dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2017;88(1):18–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2016.1255482.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Castiello E, Moghnie A, Tigani D, Affatato S. Dual mobility cup in hip arthroplasty: an in-depth analysis of joint registries. Artif Organs. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.14015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Meermans G, Konan S, Das R, Volpin A, Haddad FS. The direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-b(6):732–40. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.99b6.38053.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Post ZD, Orozco F, Diaz-Ledezma C, Hozack WJ, Ong A. Direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: indications, technique, and results. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014;22(9):595–603. https://doi.org/10.5435/jaaos-22-09-595.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Moerenhout K, Derome P, Laflamme GY, Leduc S, Gaspard HS, Benoit B. Direct anterior versus posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a multicentre, prospective, randomized clinical trial. Can J Surg. 2020;63(5):E412–7. https://doi.org/10.1503/cjs.012019.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Noyer D, Caton JH. Once upon a time.... Dual mobility: history. Int Orthop. 2017;41(3):611–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3361-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Boyer B, Philippot R, Geringer J, Farizon F. Primary total hip arthroplasty with dual mobility socket to prevent dislocation: a 22-year follow-up of 240 hips. Int Orthop. 2012;36(3):511–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1289-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Philippot R, Camilleri JP, Boyer B, Adam P, Farizon F. The use of a dual-articulation acetabular cup system to prevent dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty: analysis of 384 cases at a mean follow-up of 15 years. Int Orthop. 2009;33(4):927–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0589-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kunutsor SK, Barrett MC, Beswick AD, Judge A, Blom AW, Wylde V, et al. Risk factors for dislocation after primary total hip replacement: meta-analysis of 125 studies involving approximately five million hip replacements. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019;1(2):e111–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2665-9913(19)30045-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Romagnoli M, Grassi A, Costa GG, Lazaro LE, Lo Presti M, Zaffagnini S. The efficacy of dual-mobility cup in preventing dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Int Orthop. 2019;43(5):1071–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-4062-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Galakatos GR. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. Mo Med. 2018;115(6):537–41.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Henky P. The anterolateral Watson Jones approach in total hip replacement in the supine position. Interact Surg. 2007;2(3):138–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11610-007-0056-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ait MM. Postero-posterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2020;44(12):2577–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04679-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoskins W, Bingham R, Lorimer M, Hatton A, de Steiger RN. Early rate of revision of total hip arthroplasty related to surgical approach: an analysis of 122,345 primary total hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020;102(21):1874–82. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.19.01289.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Angerame MR, Fehring TK, Masonis JL, Mason JB, Odum SM, Springer BD. Early failure of primary total hip arthroplasty: is surgical approach a risk factor? J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(6):1780–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lindgren V, Garellick G, Karrholm J, Wretenberg P. The type of surgical approach influences the risk of revision in total hip arthroplasty: a study from the Swedish hip arthroplasty register of 90,662 total hipreplacements with 3 different cemented prostheses. Acta Orthop. 2012;83(6):559–65. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2012.742394.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kwon MS, Kuskowski M, Mulhall KJ, Macaulay W, Brown TE, Saleh KJ. Does surgical approach affect total hip arthroplasty dislocation rates? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;447:34–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000218746.84494.df.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Nest DS, Li WT, Kozick Z, Smith EB, Hozack WJ, Courtney PM. Dual mobility and conventional bearings have comparably low dislocation rates for anterior-based approaches in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36(5):1695–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.12.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Docter S, Philpott HT, Godkin L, Bryant D, Somerville L, Jennings M, et al. Comparison of intra and post-operative complication rates among surgical approaches in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop. 2020;20:310–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2020.05.008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Guyen O, Pibarot V, Vaz G, Chevillotte C, Carret JP, Bejui-Hugues J. Unconstrained tripolar implants for primary total hip arthroplasty in patients at risk for dislocation. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(6):849–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2006.11.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Munn Z, Barker TH, Moola S, Tufanaru C, Stern C, McArthur A, et al. Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2127–33. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-d-19-00099.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E, Sears K, Sfetcu R, et al. Chapter 7: systematic reviews of etiology and risk. Joanna briggs institute reviewer's manual The Joanna Briggs Institute. 2017;5.

  27. Singh JA, Schleck C, Harmsen S, Lewallen D. Clinically important improvement thresholds for Harris Hip Score and its ability to predict revision risk after primary total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17:256. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1106-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Ugino FK, Righetti CM, Alves DPL, Guimarães RP, Honda EK, Ono NK. Evaluation of the reliability of the modified Merle d’Aubigné and Postel Method. Acta ortopedica brasileira. 2012;20(4):213–7. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-78522012000400004.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Acker A, Fischer JF, Aminian K, Lécureux E, Jolles BM. Total hip arthroplasty using a cementless dual-mobility cup provides increased stability and favorable gait parameters at five years follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017;103(1):21–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2016.09.020.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Almeida RFC. Acetábulo de dupla mobilidade na artroplastia total do quadril. A experiência de um hospital universitário. Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia. 2020;55(06):708–14. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1702951.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Asselineau A, Da SC, Beithoon Z, Molina V. Prevention of dislocation of total hip arthroplasty: the dual mobility cup. Interact Surg. 2007;2(3):160–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11610-007-0050-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Baker CM, Restrepo C, Hozack WJ. Minimum five-year outcomes of modular dual mobility in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37(7):S566–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.02.118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Batailler C, Fary C, Batailler P, Servien E, Neyret P, Lustig S. Total hip arthroplasty using direct anterior approach and dual mobility cup: safe and efficient strategy against post-operative dislocation. Int Orthop. 2017;41(3):499–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3333-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bauchu P, Bonnard O, Cypres A, Fiquet A, Girardin P, Noyer D. The dual-mobility POLARCUP: first results from a multicenter study. Orthopedics. 2008;31:12.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Beckert M, Meneghini RM, Meding JB. Instability after primary total hip arthroplasty: dual mobility versus jumbo femoral heads. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37(7):S571–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.02.113.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Belgaïd V, Viste A, Fessy MH. Cementless hydroxyapatite-coated stem with dual mobility and posterior approach in over-80 year-old patients with osteoarthritis: rates of dislocation and periprosthetic fracture at a mean 8 years’ follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2021.103196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bouchet R, Mercier N, Saragaglia D. Posterior approach and dislocation rate: a 213 total hip replacements case-control study comparing the dual mobility cup with a conventional 28-mm metal head/polyethylene prosthesis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97(1):2–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2010.07.008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Chalmers BP, Dubin J, Westrich GH. Modular dual-mobility liner malseating: a radiographic analysis. Arthroplasty today. 2020;6(4):699–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2020.07.034.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Chalmers BP, Syku M, Sculco TP, Jerabek SA, Mayman DJ, Westrich GH. Dual-mobility constructs in primary total hip arthroplasty in high-risk patients with spinal fusions: our institutional experience. Arthroplast Today. 2020;6(4):749–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2020.07.024.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Chouteau J, Rollier JC, Bonnin MP, Saffarini M, Nover L, Chatelet JC, et al. Absence of instabilities and intra-prosthetic dislocations at 7 to 11 years following THA using a fourth-generation cementless dual mobility acetabular cup. J Exp Orthop. 2020;7(1):51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-020-00265-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Chughtai M, Mistry JB, Diedrich AM, Jauregui JJ, Elmallah RK, Bonutti PM, et al. Low frequency of early complications with dual-mobility acetabular cups in cementless primary THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(10):2181–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4811-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Dagneaux L, Marouby S, Maillot C, Canovas F, Rivière C. Dual mobility device reduces the risk of prosthetic hip instability for patients with degenerated spine: A case-control study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019;105(3):461–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2018.12.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Dhawan R, Baré JV, Shimmin A. Modular dual-mobility articulations in patients with adverse spinopelvic mobility. Bone Joint J. 2022;104(7):820–5. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.104B7.BJJ-2021-1628.R1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Dubin J, Huang RC, Muskat A, Sharpe K, Malkani AL, Mont M, et al. Five-year follow-up of clinical outcomes with an anatomic dual-mobility acetabular system: a multicenter study. Arthroplasty Today. 2020;6(3):543–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2020.06.013.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Dubin JA, Westrich GH. Anatomic dual mobility compared to modular dual mobility in primary total hip arthroplasty: a matched cohort study. Arthroplasty Today. 2019;5(4):509–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2019.09.006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Dubin JA, Westrich GH. Lack of early dislocation for dual mobility vs. fixed bearing total hip arthroplasty: a multi-center analysis of comparable cohorts. J Orthop. 2020;21:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2020.02.006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Epinette JA, Béracassat R, Tracol P, Pagazani G, Vandenbussche E. Are modern dual mobility cups a valuable option in reducing instability after primary hip arthroplasty, even in younger patients? J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(6):1323–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.12.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Epinette JA, Coulomb R, Pradel S, Kouyoumdjian P. Do modular dual mobility cups offer a reliable benefit? Minimum 5-year follow-up of 102 cups. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37(5):910–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.01.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ferreira A, Prudhon JL, Verdier R, Puch JM, Descamps L, Dehri G, et al. Contemporary dual-mobility cup regional and private register: methodology and results. Int Orthop. 2017;41(3):439–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3405-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Fessy MH, Jacquot L, Rollier JC, Chouteau J, Ait-Si-Selmi T, Bothorel H, et al. Midterm clinical and radiographic outcomes of a contemporary monoblock dual-mobility cup in uncemented total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(12):2983–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.07.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Fiquet A, Noyer D. “Polarsystem” dual mobility hip prosthesis and “minimally invasive surgery” (MIS). Interact Surg. 2006;1(1):51–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11610-006-0004-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Foissey C, Batailler C, Rajput V, Premkumar ABJ, Servien E, Lustig S. No dislocation and low complication rate for a modern dual mobility cup with pre-impacted femoral head in primary hip replacement: a consecutive series of 175 hips at minimum 5-year follow-up. Sicot j. 2023;9:1. https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2022050.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Fresard PL, Alvherne C, Cartier JL, Cuinet P, Lantuejoul JP. Seven-year results of a press-fit, hydroxyapatite-coated double mobility acetabular component in patients aged 65 years or older. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013;23(4):425–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-012-0991-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Gaillard R, Kenney R, Delalande JL, Batailler C, Lustig S. Ten- to 16-year results of a modern cementless dual-mobility acetabular implant in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(11):2704–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.06.051.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Gkiatas I, Tarity TD, Nocon AA, Verwiel CP, Xiang W, Malahias MA, et al. Monobloc dual mobility with a minimum 5-year follow-up: a safe and effective solution in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37(1):83–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.09.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Haen TX, Lonjon G, Vandenbussche E. Can cemented dual-mobility cups be used without a reinforcement device in cases of mild acetabular bone stock alteration in total hip arthroplasty? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015;101(8):923–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2015.09.027.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Hamadouche M, Arnould H, Bouxin B. Is a cementless dual mobility socket in primary THA a reasonable option? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(11):3048–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2395-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Haughom BD, Plummer DR, Moric M, Della Valle CJ. Is there a benefit to head size greater than 36 mm in total hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(1):152–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.08.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Henawy AT, Abdel BA. Dual mobility total hip arthroplasty in hemiplegic patients. SICOT J. 2017;3:40. https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2017024.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Hernigou P, Trousselier M, Roubineau F, Bouthors C, Flouzat Lachaniette CH. Dual-mobility or constrained liners are more effective than preoperative bariatric surgery in prevention of THA dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(10):2202–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4859-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Homma Y, Baba T, Ozaki Y, Watari T, Kobayashi H, Ochi H, et al. In total hip arthroplasty via the direct anterior approach, a dual-mobility cup prevents dislocation as effectively in hip fracture as in osteoarthritis. Int Orthop. 2017;41(3):491–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3332-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Jørgensen PB, Tabori-Jensen S, Mechlenburg I, Humilius M, Hansen TB, Stilling M. Cemented and cementless dual mobility cups show similar fixation, low polyethylene wear, and low serum cobalt-chromium in elderly patients: a randomized radiostereometry study with 6 years’ follow-up. Acta Orthop. 2022;93:906–13. https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2022.5761.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Kumar H, Gowda M, Abraham AT, Reddy YM, Vamshi Krishna CH, Nimmagadda, et al. Short Term Functional and Radiological Outcome of Patients Undergoing Complex Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Dual Mobility Acetabular Cup. NeuroQuantology. 2022;20(16):4260–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.48047/NQ.2022.20.16.NQ880435.

  64. Lamo-Espinosa JM, Gómez-Álvarez J, Gatica J, Suárez Á, Moreno V, Díaz P, de Rada A, Valentí-Azcárate MA-O, San-Julián M, Valentí-Nin JR. Cemented dual mobility cup for primary total hip arthroplasty in elder patients with high-risk instability. Geriatrics. 2021;6(1):23. https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics6010023.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Laurendon L, Philippot R, Neri T, Boyer B, Farizon F. Ten-year clinical and radiological outcomes of 100 total hip arthroplasty cases with a modern cementless dual mobility cup. Surg Technol Int. 2018;32:331–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Londhe SB, Khot R, Shah RV, Desouza C. An early experience of the use of dual mobility cup uncemented total hip arhroplasty in young patients with avascular necrosis of the femoral head. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2022;33:101995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2022.101995.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Luthra JS, Al Riyami A, Allami MK. Dual mobility total hip replacement in a high risk population. SICOT J. 2016;2:43. https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2016037.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Maisongrosse P, Lepage B, Cavaignac E, Pailhe R, Reina N, Chiron P, et al. Obesity is no longer a risk factor for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty with a double-mobility cup. Int Orthop. 2015;39(7):1251–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2612-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Martz P, Maczynski A, Elsair S, Labattut L, Viard B, Baulot E. Total hip arthroplasty with dual mobility cup in osteonecrosis of the femoral head in young patients: over ten years of follow-up. Int Orthop. 2017;41(3):605–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3344-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Massin P, Orain V, Philippot R, Farizon F, Fessy MH. Fixation failures of dual mobility cups: a mid-term study of 2601 hip replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(7):1932–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2213-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Moon NH, Do MU, Kim JS, Seo JS, Shin WC. The usefulness of dual mobility cups in primary total hip arthroplasty patients at a risk of dislocation. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):774. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-04774-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Nam D, Salih R, Nahhas CR, Barrack RL, Nunley RM. Is a modular dual mobility acetabulum a viable option for the young, active total hip arthroplasty patient? Bone Joint J. 2019;101(4):365–71. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.101b4.Bjj-2018-0834.R1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Neri T, Philippot R, Farizon F, Boyer B. Results of primary total hip replacement with first generation Bousquet dual mobility socket with more than twenty five years follow up. About a series of two hundred and twelve hips. Int Orthop. 2017;41(3):557–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3373-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Nessler JM, Malkani AL, Sachdeva S, Nessler JP, Westrich G, Harwin SF, et al. Use of dual mobility cups in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty with prior lumbar spine fusion. Int Orthop. 2020;44(5):857–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04507-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Paderni S, Pari C, Raggini F, Busatto C, Delmastro E, Belluati A. Third generation dual mobility cups: could be the future in total hip arthroplasty? A five-year experience with dualis. Acta Biomed. 2022;92:e2021553.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Pattyn C, Willekens P, Audenaert E. Dual-mobility socket in challenging total hip arthroplasty: 2–6 years follow-up. Acta Orthop Belg. 2018;84(2):149–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Philippot R, Adam P, Farizon F, Fessy MH, Bousquet G. Survival of cementless dual mobility sockets: ten-year follow-up. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2006;92(4):326–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0035-1040(06)75762-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Prudhon JL, Verdier R, Caton JH. Low friction arthroplasty and dual mobility cup: a new gold standard. Int Orthop. 2017;41(3):563–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3375-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Puch JM, Derhi G, Descamps L, Verdier R, Caton JH. Dual-mobility cup in total hip arthroplasty in patients less than fifty five years and over ten years of follow-up : a prospective and comparative series. Int Orthop. 2017;41(3):475–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3325-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Randelli F, Fioruzzi A, Scaltrito L, Brioschi M, Ayeni OR, Randelli PS. Direct anterior approach and dual mobility cup: the “head-first” reduction technique: a technical note and early case series. Musculoskelet Surg. 2021;105(2):201–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-020-00641-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Rowan FE, Salvatore AJ, Lange JK, Westrich GH. Dual-mobility vs fixed-bearing total hip arthroplasty in patients under 55 years of age: a single-institution. Matched-Cohort Anal J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(10):3076–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Sanders RJ, Swierstra BA, Goosen JH. The use of a dual-mobility concept in total hip arthroplasty patients with spastic disorders: no dislocations in a series of ten cases at midterm follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(7):1011–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1759-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Schneider L, Châtain F, Estour G, Ramos-Pascual S, Nover L, Bonin N. Total hip arthroplasty using a hemispherical uncemented dual-mobility cup results in satisfactory clinical outcomes and no dislocations at 2 years. Arthroplasty Today. 2021;9:93–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2021.04.017.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Singh V, Loloi J, Macaulay W, Hepinstall MS, Schwarzkopf R, Aggarwal VK. Dual-mobility versus fixed-bearing in primary total hip arthroplasty: outcome comparison. Hip Pelvis. 2022;34(2):96–105. https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2022.34.2.96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Tabori-Jensen S, Mosegaard SB, Hansen TB, Stilling M. Inferior stabilization of cementless compared with cemented dual-mobility cups in elderly osteoarthrosis patients: a randomized controlled radiostereometry study on 60 patients with 2 years’ follow-up. Acta Orthop. 2020;91(3):246–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1720978.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Vermersch T, Viste A, Desmarchelier R, Fessy MH. Prospective longitudinal study of one hundred patients with total hip arthroplasty using a second-generation cementless dual-mobility cup. Int Orthop. 2015;39(11):2097–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2985-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Vielpeau C, Lebel B, Ardouin L, Burdin G, Lautridou C. The dual mobility socket concept: experience with 668 cases. Int Orthop. 2011;35(2):225–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1156-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Vigdorchik JM, D’Apuzzo MR, Markel DC, Malkani AL, Raterman S, Sharpe KP, et al. Lack of early dislocation following total hip arthroplasty with a new dual mobility acetabular design. Hip Int. 2015;25(1):34–8. https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Viricel C, Boyer B, Philippot R, Farizon F, Neri T. Survival and complications of total hip arthroplasty using third-generation dual-mobility cups with non-cross-linked polyethylene liners in patients younger than 55 years. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2022.103208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Yang J, Bryan AJ, Drabchuk R, Tetreault MW, Calkins TE, Della Valle CJ. Use of a monoblock dual-mobility acetabular component in primary total hip arthroplasty in patients at high risk of dislocation. Hip Int. 2022;32(5):648–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700020988469.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Young JR, O’Connor CM, Anoushiravani AA, DiCaprio MR. The use of dual mobility implants in patients who are at high risk for dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. JBJS Reviews. 2020;8(8):e20.00028-e20.00028. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.20.00028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Blakeney WG, Epinette JA, Vendittoli PA. Dual mobility total hip arthroplasty: should everyone get one? EFORT Open Rev. 2019;4(9):541–7. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.180045.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Epinette JA. Clinical outcomes, survivorship and adverse events with mobile-bearings versus fixed-bearings in hip arthroplasty-a prospective comparative cohort study of 143 ADM versus 130 trident cups at 2 to 6-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(2):241–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Singh G, Khurana A, Gupta S. Evaluation of direct anterior approach for revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Hip Pelvis. 2021;33(3):109–19. https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2021.33.3.109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Wang Z, Hou JZ, Wu CH, Zhou YJ, Gu XM, Wang HH, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct anterior approach versus posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res. 2018;13(1):229. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0929-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Yoo JI, Cha YH, Kim KJ, Kim HY, Choy WS, Hwang SC. Gait analysis after total hip arthroplasty using direct anterior approach versus anterolateral approach: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2450-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Cha Y, Yoo JI, Kim JT, Park CH, Choy W, Ha YC, et al. Disadvantage during perioperative period of total hip arthroplasty using the direct anterior approach: a network meta-analysis. J Korean Med Sci. 2020;35(18):e111. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e111.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Cheng TE, Wallis JA, Taylor NF, Holden CT, Marks P, Smith CL, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial in total hip arthroplasty-comparing early results between the direct anterior approach and the posterior approach. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(3):883–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.08.027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Yang Z, Feng S, Guo KJ, Zha GC. Patient-reported results of simultaneous direct anterior approach and posterolateral approach total hip arthroplasties performed in the same patients. J Orthop Traumatol. 2021;22(1):46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-021-00611-w.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Bon G, Kacem EB, Lepretre PM, Weissland T, Mertl P, Dehl M, et al. Does the direct anterior approach allow earlier recovery of walking following total hip arthroplasty? A randomized prospective trial using accelerometry. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019;105(3):445–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2019.02.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Homma Y, Baba T, Kobayashi H, Desroches A, Ochi H, Ozaki Y, et al. Benefit and risk in short term after total hip arthroplasty by direct anterior approach combined with dual mobility cup. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016;26(6):619–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-016-1808-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Bhandari M, Matta JM, Dodgin D, Clark C, Kregor P, Bradley G, et al. Outcomes following the single-incision anterior approach to total hip arthroplasty: a multicenter observational study. Orthop Clin North Am. 2009;40(3):329–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2009.03.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Müller DA, Zingg PO, Dora C. Anterior minimally invasive approach for total hip replacement: five-year survivorship and learning curve. Hip Int. 2014;24(3):277–83. https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Lustig S, Mertl P, Fessy MH, Massin P. Is direct anterior approach plus dual-mobility cup a good match? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018;104(8):1135–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2018.09.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Thürig G, Schmitt JW, Slankamenac K, Werner CML. Safety of total hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures using the direct anterior approach: a retrospective observational study in 86 elderly patients. Patient Saf Surg. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-016-0100-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Epinette JA, Lafuma A, Robert J, Doz M. Cost-effectiveness model comparing dual-mobility to fixed-bearing designs for total hip replacement in France. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016;102(2):143–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2015.12.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Barlow BT, McLawhorn AS, Westrich GH. The cost-effectiveness of dual mobility implants for primary total hip arthroplasty: a computer-based cost-utility model. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99(9):768–77. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.16.00109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Pai F-Y, Ma H-H, Chou T-FA, Huang T-W, Huang K-C, Tsai S-W, Chen C-F, Chen W-M. Risk factors and modes of failure in the modern dual mobility implant. A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disord. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04404-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Alexander Mebane, Nicole Hardy, and John Pederson, who provided medical writing services and technical assistance on behalf of Superior Medical Experts and Nested Knowledge Inc.

Funding

None to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mercy Health St. Vincent Medical Center, 2409 Cherry St, Suite #10, Toledo, OH, 43608, USA

    Justin T. Butler, Samuel D. Stegelmann, Johnathon L. Butler & Richard M. Miller

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Marshall University Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Huntington, WV, USA

    Matthew Bullock

Authors
  1. Justin T. Butler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samuel D. Stegelmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johnathon L. Butler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew Bullock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Richard M. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to designing the research idea, provided edits and expert recommendation for manuscript inclusion. JB and SS wrote the original manuscript and performed revisions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin T. Butler.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

Risk of bias assessment.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Butler, J.T., Stegelmann, S.D., Butler, J.L. et al. Comparing dislocation rates by approach following elective primary dual mobility total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Orthop Surg Res 18, 226 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-03724-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-03724-6

Keywords

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X