Clin Orthop Surg.  2025 Feb;17(1):62-70. 10.4055/cios24148.

Comparing Stability, Gait, and Functional Score after 40-mm Dual-Mobility Hip Arthroplasty to 36-mm Head Hip Arthroplasty in Elderly Hip Fracture Patients

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Daejeon Eulji Medical Center, Eulji University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea
  • 2Biomedical Research Institute, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, Korea
  • 3Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, Korea
  • 4Division of Life Science, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Korea
  • 5Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Inha University Hospital, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
  • 6Department of Orthopedic Surgery, New Daesung Hospital, Bucheon, Korea
  • 7Biomedical Research Institute, Inha University Hospital, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea

Abstract

Background
This study aimed to compare the intraoperative stability and early clinical outcomes of 40-mm diameter dual mobility (DM)-total hip arthroplasty (THA) with 36-mm ceramic head (large head) THA in active elderly patients with hip fractures.
Methods
A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from May 2022 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 60 years, displaced femoral neck fracture, Koval grade 1 or 2, planned 54-mm acetabular component, and over 1-year follow-up. Intraoperative stability tests were performed on all patients (internal rotation at 45°, 60°, and 90° of hip fracture). Functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score and University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA] Score) were evaluated at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Gait analysis using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques was conducted at 3 months postoperatively.
Results
The study included 36 DM-THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 2.2 years; 44% women) and 37 large head THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 1.2 years; 64% women). No statistically significant differences were observed in functional outcomes and hip range of motion between the 2 groups. However, there was a significant difference in the gait speed and stance-swing phase of the large head THA group and the DM-THA group: the DM-THA group demonstrated superior gait speed (2.85 ± 0.83 kph vs. 2.04 ± 1.04 kph, p = 0.003) and higher stance phase ratios (operated side: 63.57% ± 3.82% vs. 48.19% ± 5.50%, p < 0.001; opposite side: 62.77% ± 2.27% vs. 49.93% ± 6.94%, p < 0.001). In the stability test at 90° of hip flexion, the DM-THA group had a measurement of 48.40° ± 5.17°, while the large head THA group had a measurement of 30.94° ± 2.98° (p = 0.012). Despite the lack of statistical significance, the intraoperative stability test showed the dislocation angle was notably different between the groups in the hip flexion position of 60° (51.60° ± 6.09° in the DM-THA group and 40.00° ± 2.80° in the large head THA group, p = 0.072).
Conclusions
Superior results were observed in the intraoperative stability test and early recovery of gait after DM-THA compared to large head THA. We believe that DM-THA can be a useful surgical option for THA in elderly patients with hip fractures.

Keyword

Total hip arthroplasty; Hip fracture; Artificial intelligence; Gait analysis
Full Text Links
  • CIOS
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2025 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr