Two-Year Outcomes of Novel Dual-Mobility Implant in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

Benjamin C Schaffler; Hayley E Raymond; Collin S Black; Akram A Habibi; Mallory Ehlers; Stephen T Duncan; Ran Schwarzkopf

doi:10.1155/2024/4125965

Two-Year Outcomes of Novel Dual-Mobility Implant in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

Adv Orthop. 2024 Jan 16:2024:4125965. doi: 10.1155/2024/4125965. eCollection 2024.

Authors

Benjamin C Schaffler¹, Hayley E Raymond¹, Collin S Black², Akram A Habibi¹, Mallory Ehlers¹, Stephen T Duncan², Ran Schwarzkopf¹

Affiliations

¹ New York University Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
² University of Kentucky, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Lexington, KY, USA.

Abstract

Introduction: Dual-mobility (DM) implants for total hip arthroplasty (THA) have gained popularity due to their potential to reduce hip instability and dislocation events that may lead to revision surgery. These implants consist of a femoral head articulated within a polyethylene liner, which articulates within an outer acetabular shell, creating a dual-bearing surface. Our study aimed to report our observations on the survivorship of a novel DM implant for primary total hip arthroplasty at two years.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study to assess the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing a THA with a novel DM implant (OR3O acetabular system™, Smith & Nephew, Inc., Memphis, TN) from January 2020 to September 2021. Patient demographics, surgical information, and survivorship data were collected from medical records for patients with a minimum of two years of follow-up. Primary outcomes included overall implant survivorship at two years as well as aseptic survivorship, revision rates of the DM acetabular shell, and average time to revision. Patient-reported outcomes were collected in the form of HOOS JR.

Results: A total of 250 hips in 245 patients had a minimum two-year follow-up. Primary osteoarthritis (80%) was the most common indication for index THA. The average aseptic survivorship of the DM acetabular components at two years for the cohort was 98.4% and survivorship of the acetabular implants overall was 97.6%. There were a total of four (1.6%) aseptic revisions of the DM acetabular component. Reasons for aseptic acetabular revision included one case of instability, one intraprosthetic dislocation, one periprosthetic acetabular fracture, and one malpositioned acetabular cup resulting in impingement. The mean time of follow-up was 893.9 days. Eighty-seven patients had preoperative and two-year HOOS JR available. HOOS JR improved by an average of 38.5 points.

Conclusion: This novel DM acetabular implant demonstrates excellent survivorship at two years follow-up with low rates of instability and intraprosthetic dislocation and no episodes of metal-on-metal corrosion. Use of the DM implant demonstrated clinically relevant improvements in patient-reported outcomes at two years.