In short-term outcomes ( 5 years or less , with follow-up of 0–5 years ) , the best implant of choice that has lowest risk of revision and dislocation after THA is DMTHA follow by BTHA .
Abstract Postoperative dislocation is a challenging complication after  total hip arthroplasty ( THA ) that affects patient outcome worldwide .
Instability is one of the main complications with rates exceeding 20 % in some series .
Currently , alternative acetabular components are available with dual mobility ( DMTHA ) bearing surfaces and larger femoral head size that may reduce the risk of dislocation , yet provide the functional benefit of st and ard single mobility ( STHA ) bearing surface THA .
However , whether STHA , big femoral head ( BTHA ) and DMTHA should be used is still controversial .
This systematic review and meta- analysis aim to compare postoperative dislocation and revision ( aseptic loosening and infection ) of BTHA , STHA and DMTHA in primary or revision THA .
These clinical outcomes consist of postoperative dislocation and revision ( aseptic loosening and infection ) .
Causes for revision of dual-mobility and standard primary total hip arthroplasty
Introduction The causes for revision of primary total hip arthroplasty ( THA ) are various and quite well known . The developing use of dual-mobility THA ( DM-THA ) seems a relevant option to decrease the risk of instability . Due to lack of long-term follow-up , this innovative retentive concept is suspected to increase the risk of polyethylene ( PE ) wear . the aim of the study was to analyse the causes for  DM-THA revision and assess whether or not its occurrence is different from that of fixed-st and ard ( FS ) THA , particularly for aseptic loosening or wear and /or osteolysis . Material s and methods The SoFCOT group conducted an observational prospect i ve multicentre study from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2011 . Inclusion criteria comprised an exhaustive collection of 2044 first-revision THAs with 251 DM-THAs and 1793 FS-THAs . After excluding complications linked to patient factors ( infection and periprosthetic fractures ) , we performed a matched case – control study ( matching ratio 1:1 ) comparing two groups of 133 THAs . Results Revisions for aseptic loosening or osteolysis/wear were as frequent in DM-THA ( 58.7 % ) as in FS-THA ( 57.1 % ) ( p 0.32 ) ; 7.5 % of DM-THA were revised for dislocation versus 19.5 % of FS-THA ( p 0.007 ) . Discussion Revision for osteolysis/wear and aseptic loosening were as frequent in DM-THA as in FS-THA ;  revision for dislocation was less frequent in DM-THA . This confirms the efficiency of the DM concept regarding the risk of dislocation . Causes for revision were different between groups , and revisions for dislocation were less frequent in DM-THA . Only prospect i ve comparative studies could provide reliable information that may support broader use of the DM concept
In short-term outcomes ( 5 years or less , with follow-up of 0–5 years ) , the best implant of choice that has lowest risk of revision and dislocation after THA is DMTHA follow by BTHA .
Abstract Postoperative dislocation is a challenging complication after  total hip arthroplasty ( THA ) that affects patient outcome worldwide .
Instability is one of the main complications with rates exceeding 20 % in some series .
Currently , alternative acetabular components are available with dual mobility ( DMTHA ) bearing surfaces and larger femoral head size that may reduce the risk of dislocation , yet provide the functional benefit of st and ard single mobility ( STHA ) bearing surface THA .
However , whether STHA , big femoral head ( BTHA ) and DMTHA should be used is still controversial .
This systematic review and meta- analysis aim to compare postoperative dislocation and revision ( aseptic loosening and infection ) of BTHA , STHA and DMTHA in primary or revision THA .
These clinical outcomes consist of postoperative dislocation and revision ( aseptic loosening and infection ) .