Background: The dual-mobility acetabular cup (DMC) has an additional bearing consisting of a mobile polyethylene component between the prosthetic head and the outer metal shell. This design has gained popularity in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and in primary treatment of femoral neck fractures with the anticipation of a reduced risk of THA instability. Our primary aim was to evaluate the overall revision risk of these cups on the basis of data from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database, and our secondary aim was to study specific revision causes including dislocation. Methods: Propensity score matching for age, sex, fixation of the cup and stem, and the year of surgery (2001 to 2014) was used to match 4,520 hip fractures treated with a DMC to 4,520 hip fractures treated with conventional THA (control group). Competing risk regression analyses with revision or death as the end point were used. Revision was defined as a secondary surgical procedure in which any component of the implant was removed or exchanged. In addition, revision of the cup was analyzed. Results: The DMCs had a lower risk of revision compared with conventional THA, with an adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62 to 0.92). This was consistent after adjusting for surgical approach. DMCs had a lower risk of revision due to dislocation (AHR = 0.45 [95% CI = 0.30 to 0.68]) but we found no difference regarding revision for deep infection. Revision of the acetabular component, both in general and due to dislocation, was more frequent with the use of conventional cups. The risk of death was higher in the DMC group (AHR = 1.49 [95% CI = 1.40 to 1.59]). Conclusions: The use of a DMC as primary treatment for hip fracture was associated with a lower risk of revision in general and due to dislocation in particular. The total number of DMCs analyzed (4,520) likely exceeds any cohort of DMC-treated fractures published to date. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background and purpose — Reported revision rates due to dislocation after hemiarthroplasty span a wide range. Dislocations treated with closed reduction are rarely reported despite the fact that they can be expected to constitute most of the dislocations that occur. We aimed to describe the total dislocation rate on the national level, and to identify risk factors for dislocation. Patients and methods — We co-processed a national cohort of 25,678 patients in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, with the National Patient Register (NPR) and Statistics Sweden. Dislocation was defined as the occurrence of any ICD-10 or procedural code related to hip dislocation recorded in the NPR, with a minimum of 1-year-follow-up. In theory, all early dislocations should thereby be traced, including those treated with closed reduction only. Results — 366/13,769 (2.7%) patients operated on with direct lateral approach dislocated, compared with 850/11,834 (7.2%) of those with posterior approach. Posterior approach was the strongest risk factor for dislocation (OR = 2.7; 95% CI 2.3–3.1), followed by dementia (OR = 1.3; CI 1.1–1.5). The older the patients, the lower the risk of dislocation (OR = 0.98 per year of age; CI 0.98–1.0). Neither bipolar design nor cementless stems influenced the risk. Interpretation — The choice of posterior approach and dementia was associated with an increased dislocation risk. When hips treated with closed reduction were identified, the frequency of dislocation with use of direct lateral and posterior approach more than doubled and tripled, respectively, compared with when only revisions due to dislocation are measured.