The 10-Year Revision Risk of Dual-Mobility Versus Standard Cups in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis: A Population-Based Study from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register
In brief
Dual-mobility hip cups show no lower 10-year revision risk overall
In this Danish registry study of more than 55,000 people having hip replacement for osteoarthritis, 10-year revision risk was 6.6% with dual-mobility cups, versus 5.9% with standard 36 mm cups and 6.9% with 32 mm cups; overall differences were not significant. Dual-mobility cups had fewer revisions for dislocation but more for infection, leaving the trade-off between these causes important.
- Journal
- The Journal of arthroplasty (Q1)
- Published
- 27 October 2026
- Study design
- Cohort / observational study
- Evidence level
- Level 3, Low (CEBM 3b)
- Authors
- Yousef Hussein, Afrim Iljazi, Michala Skovlund Sørensen, Frank Eriksson, Søren Overgaard, Michael Mørk Petersen
- PMID
- 42946100
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.arth.2026.10.022
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Orthopedics and Sports Medicine (paper of the day, 30 October 2026): Ten-year comparative revision outcomes for THA cup choices
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dislocation is the leading cause of first-time revision following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Dual-mobility (DM) cups have been used to reduce this risk, but data on 10-year revision outcomes with DM compared with standard cups remain limited. We aimed to compare the 10-year risk of all-cause and cause-specific revision between DM cups and standard cups with 32 or 36 mm femoral heads. METHODS: This was a nationwide register-based cohort study using data from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register and the Danish National Patient Register. We included patients who underwent primary THA for osteoarthritis (OA) between 2007 and 2019 receiving either a monoblock DM cup or a standard cup with a 32 mm (SC32) or 36 mm (SC36) femoral head. We identified 5,187 patients who have DM, 35,162 with SC36, and 15,702 with SC32. The primary outcome was revision within 10 years for any cause. The secondary outcomes included cause-specific revision within 10 years. We estimated standardized risk differences using direct standardization to the covariate distribution of the combined population. RESULTS: The standardized 10-year risk of all-cause revision was 6.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.7 to 7.4) for DM, 5.9% (95% CI 5.6 to 6.3) for SC36, and 6.9% (95% CI 6.4 to 7.4) for SC32. The standardized risk difference was -0.6 percentage points (95% CI -1.5 to 0.3; P = 0.16) for DM versus SC36 and 0.3 percentage points (95% CI -0.6 to 1.3; P = 0.50) for DM versus SC32. CONCLUSION: The 10-year standardized risk of all-cause revision did not differ between DM and SC36 or SC32. The DM was associated with a lower standardized risk of revision due to dislocation, but a higher standardized risk of revision due to infection compared with both SC32 and SC36.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.