Table 4. Reports of Revision THA with Dual Mobility Design (II).
| Study (year) | Implant (manufacturer) | No. of hip | Mean follow-up (mo) | Mean age (yr) | Dislocation rate (%) | Survival rate (%) | IPD (%) | Acetabular loosening (%) | HHS (preope ration) | HHS at last follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wegrzyn et al. (2015)45) | Saturne (Amplitude) | 994 | 87 | 70 | 1.5 | - | 0.2 | 0 | - | - |
| Mohammed et al. (2015)14) | Novae (Serf) | 24 | 22 | 70.8 | 0 | 100 | 0 | - | - | - |
| Simian et al. (2015)70) | DMS/Evora (SEM), Mobilité (Tornier) | 72 | 87 | 67.9 | 1.4 | 90 | 0 | 1.4 | - | 80.4 |
| Haen et al. (2015)64) | Saturne (Amplitude) | 66 | 50 | 79.8 | 0 | 98 | 0 | 1.5 | - | - |
| Viste et al. (2017)4) | Novae (Serf) | 334 | 60 | - | 3.3 | - | 0 | 3 | - | - |
| Jauregui et al. (2016)10) | MDM (Stryker) | 60 | 30 | 57 | 1.7 | - | 0 | 1.7 | - | 89 |
| Dangin et al. (2016)71) | Novae E (Serf) | 91 | 33 | 71 | 3.5 | 91.4 | 0 | 0 | - | - |
| Carulli et al. (2016)72) | Avantage (Biomet) | 31 | 46 | 75.4 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 62.2 | 76 |
| Plummer et al. (2016)65) | ADM (Stryker) | 36 | 29 | 64 | 2.7 | 88.9 | 0 | 0 | 45 | 90 |
| Gonzalez et al. (2017)66) | Polarcup (S&N), Versafit (Medacta) | 150 | 31 | 73 | 2.7 | 91 | - | 0.6 | - | - |
| Plummer et al. (2016)67) | Saturne (Amplitude) | 25 | 29 | 61.7 | 0 | 96 | 4 | 0 | 57 | 87 |
| Lebeau et al. (2017)68) | Quattro (Lépine) | 62 | 77 | 70.5 | 1.6 | 91.9 | 0 | 6.4 | 49 | 73 |
| Mohaddes et al. (2017)69) | Avantage (Biomet) | 436 | 48 | 75 | 1.6 | 91 | - | - | - | - |
| Sutter et al. (2017)31) | MDM (Stryker) | 64 | 36 | 59 | 3 | 91 | - | 1.5 | - | - |
| Lange et al. (2018)30) | ADM (Stryker), MDM (Stryker) | 40 | 36 | 64 | 5 | 90 | 2.5 | 0 | - | - |
| Brüggeman et al. (2018)73) | Avantage (Biomet) | 69 | 59 | 67 | 1.4 | 96 | 0 | 2.9 | - | 77 |
THA: total hip arthroplasty, IPD: intra-prosthetic dislocation, HHS: Harris hip score.