Purpose: Use of dual mobility (DM) articulations can reduce the risk of instability in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Knowledge regarding the impact of this design on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is limited. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes between DM and fixed bearing (FB) prostheses following primary THA. Materials and Methods: All patients who underwent primary THA between 2011-2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were separated into three cohorts: FB vs monoblock-D vs modular-DM. An evaluation of PROMs including HOOS, JR, and FJS-12, as well as discharge-disposition, 90-day readmissions, and revisions rates was performed. Propensity-score matching was performed to limit significant demographic differences, while ANOVA and chi-squared test were used for comparison of outcomes. Results: Of the 15,184 patients identified, 14,652 patients (96.5%) had a FB, 185 patients (1.2%) had a monoblock-DM, and 347 patients (2.3%) had a modular-DM prosthesis. After propensity-score matching, a total of 447 patients were matched comparison. There was no statistical difference in the 90-day readmission (P=0.584), revision rate (P=0.265), and 90-day readmission (P=0.365) and revision rate due to dislocation (P=0.365) between the cohorts. Discharge disposition was also non-significant (P=0.124). There was no statistical difference in FJS-12 scores at 3-months (P=0.820), 1-year (P=0.982), and 2-years (P=0.608) between the groups. Conclusion DM bearings yield PROMs similar to those of FB implants in patients undergoing primary THA.Although DM implants are utilized more often in patients at higher-risk for instability, we suggest that similar patient satisfaction may be attained while achieving similar dislocation rates.

Background: Bicruciate-stabilized (BCS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to restore normal kinematics by replicating the function of both cruciate ligaments. Conventional cruciate-retaining (CR) design in TKA has shown previous clinical success with lower complication rates. This study compared the patient-reported outcomes between the BCS and CR TKA designs. Methods: This retrospective study examined patients who underwent primary TKA using a CR or a BCS implant. Patient demographics, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR), and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) were compared between two cohorts. Patient-reported outcome measures were analyzed using independent samples t-tests. Results: There were no significant preoperative demographic differences between groups. The CR cohort (n = 756) had significantly higher average KOOS, JR Scores compared to the BCS cohort (n = 652) at 3 months (59.7 ± 3.8 vs. 53.0 ± 3.9, p < 0.001) and 2 years (62.6 ± 8.0 vs. 53.8 ± 6.7, p = 0.001) after TKA. Within the cohort, KOOS, JR delta differences were not significant for CR when comparing patient scores 3 months to 1 year after surgery. Meanwhile, the BCS patients did show significant delta improvement (4.1 ± 1.9, p = 0.030) when compared 3 months to 1 year after surgery. One year postoperatively, the BCS cohort (n = 134) showed a significantly higher average FJS score (49.5 ± 31.4, vs. 36.8 ± 28.5, p = 0.028) than the CR cohort (n = 203). Both cohorts displayed a significant difference in delta improvements within their respective cohort when measuring FJS from 3 months to 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after surgery. Conclusions The CR cohort performed better on average, compared to the BCS cohort in measures of KOOS, JR scores at the 2-year follow-up. The BCS cohort performed marginally better regarding FJS only at 1-year follow-up.

Background: Increased load bearing across the patellofemoral and tibiofemoral articulations has been associated with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) complications. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to quantify the biomechanical characteristics of the patellofemoral and tibiofemoral joints and simulate varying weight-bearing demands after posterior cruciate ligament-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) TKAs. Methods: Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric knees (average age, 68.4 years; range, 40–86 years) were tested using a custom knee system with muscle-loading capabilities. The TKA knees were tested with a CR and then a PS TKA implant and were loaded at 6 different flexion angles from 15° to 90° with progressively increasing loads. The independent variables were the implant types (CR and PS TKA), progressively increased loading, and knee flexion angle (KFA). The dependent variables were the patellofemoral and tibiofemoral kinematics and contact characteristics. Results: The results showed that at higher KFAs, the position of the femur translated significantly more posterior in CR implants than in PS implants (36.6 ± 5.2 mm and 32.5 ± 5.7 mm, respectively). The patellofemoral contact force and contact area were significantly greater in PS than in CR implants at higher KFAs and loads (102.4 ± 12.5 N and 88.1 ± 10.9 N, respectively). Lastly, the tibiofemoral contact force was significantly greater in the CR than the PS implant at flexion angles of 45°, 60°, 75°, and 90° KFA, the average at these flexion angles for all loads tested being 246.1 ± 42.1 N and 192.8 ± 54.8 N for CR and PS implants, respectively. Conclusions In this biomechanical study, CR TKAs showed less patellofemoral contact force, but more tibiofemoral contact force than PS TKAs. For higher loads across the joint and at increased flexion angles, there was significantly more posterior femur translation in the CR design with a preserved posterior cruciate ligament and therefore significantly less patellofemoral contact area and force than in the PS design. The different effects of loading on implants are an important consideration for physicians as patients with higher load demands should consider the significantly greater patellofemoral contact force and area of the PS over the CR design.