The John Charnley Award: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Dual Mobility and Single Bearings for Patients at High Risk of Dislocation Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Potluri, Ajay S; Yadav, Aditya S; Weintraub, Matthew T; DeBenedetti, Anne; Della Valle, Craig J; Schwarzkopf, Ran; Courtney, P Maxwell; Heckmann, Nathanael et al. · J Arthroplasty · 2026

rct · Level II

Where this comes from

Abstract

This multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) sought to determine if dual-mobility bearings (DM) reduce dislocations in patients at high-risk for instability undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared to single bearing (SB) femoral heads. A total of 555 patients undergoing primary posterior approach THA were randomized to DM (n = 271; 42 mm mean effective head, range 36 to 55) or SB heads (n = 284; 28 mm [n = 2], 32 mm [n = 42], 36 mm [n = 168], 40 mm [n = 61], 44 mm [n = 11]). High-risk criteria included: prior lumbosacral fusion (n = 170) or other inclusions (age ≥ 75, preoperative combined flexion-adduction-internal rotation ≥ 115°, substance abuse, inflammatory arthritis, neuromuscular disorder, removal of hardware, cognitive impairment, acute displaced femoral neck fracture, and kyphosis/scoliosis; n = 385). There were 28 patients (5.0%) lost to follow-up before 90 days, leaving 527 patients followed for a median of 23 months (range, 3.0 to 87.2). There were two dislocations in the DM group and six in the SB group (0.7 versus 2.1%, P = 0.29). There was no difference in 2-year dislocation-free survivorship between cohorts (DM: 99.0 versus SB: 97.6%; P = 0.63). There were 16 hips revised (DM: 2.2 versus SB: 3.5%; P = 0.45), with no difference in 2-year all-cause revision-free survivorship (DM: 97.5 versus SB: 96.4%; P = 0.53). Infection was the most common revision indication (two DM [0.7%] versus five SB [1.8%]). There were no differences in patient reported outcome measures at any time point (P > 0.05). In this multicenter RCT, DM bearings were associated with a threefold reduction in dislocation risk, but given the lower than anticipated overall dislocation rate, this difference did not reach statistical significance. Further follow-up is required to capture late dislocations or instability.