<- Back to digest

JOA - 2026-06-15 - Journal Article

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 AS, Yadav AS, Weintraub MT, DeBenedetti A, Della Valle CJ, Schwarzkopf R, Courtney PM, Heckmann N, Nam D

RCTLOE In = 555 (DM n=271, SB n=284); 527 with ≥90-day follow-upMedian 23 months (range 3.0–87.2 months)

Topics

arthroplastyspine
PMID: 42297120DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2026.06.018View on PubMed ->

Key Takeaway

In high-risk primary THA patients randomized to dual-mobility vs. single-bearing constructs, dislocation rates were 0.7% vs. 2.1% at median 23 months—a threefold difference that failed to reach statistical significance (P=0.29).

Summary Depth

Choose how much analysis to show on this article page.

Summary

This multicenter RCT randomized high-risk posterior-approach primary THA patients (prior lumbosacral fusion, age ≥75, neuromuscular disorder, femoral neck fracture, and other instability risk factors) to dual-mobility (DM) or single-bearing (SB) constructs to determine whether DM reduces dislocation. Dislocation occurred in 0.7% of DM vs. 2.1% of SB patients (P=0.29), with 2-year dislocation-free survivorship of 99.0% vs. 97.6% (P=0.63). All-cause revision rates (2.2% DM vs. 3.5% SB, P=0.45) and PROMs were equivalent at all time points.

Key Limitation

The study was fundamentally underpowered due to a lower-than-anticipated overall dislocation rate (1.5% observed vs. the assumed rate driving sample size), making a statistically significant conclusion impossible regardless of the true treatment effect.

Original Abstract

INTRODUCTION

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.

METHODS

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).

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSION

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.