Abstract
BACKGROUND: Failure of cementless acetabular osseointegration is rare in total hip arthroplasty. Nevertheless, new fixation surfaces continue to be introduced. Novel implants may lack large diameter, constrained bearings, or dual mobility (DM) bearings to address instability. We compared clinical and radiographic outcomes for acetabular components with differing fixation surfaces and bearing options, focusing on the relationship between fixation surface and osseointegration and the relationship between bearing options and dislocation rate. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 463 total hip arthroplasties implanted with 3 different acetabular components between 2012 and 2016. Records were reviewed for demographics, clinical scores, and complications. Radiographs were examined for evidence of acetabular osteointegration. Analysis of variance and chi-square tests were used to compare cohorts. RESULTS: All cohorts had 100% survivorship free of acetabular fixation failure with no differences in clinical scores. Dislocation occurred in 1.3% of cases (n = 6). Analysis of the "transition" sizes, for which brand determined the maximum bearing diameter, revealed a significantly higher dislocation rate (3/50, 6%) in implants with limited bearing options. All 4 revisions for recurrent dislocation involved well-positioned components that did not accept large diameter, constrained bearings, or DM bearings, resulting in 3 shell revisions to expand bearing options. Femoral revisions were associated with dislocation risk but did not vary between cohorts. CONCLUSION: Dislocation was the primary mechanical cause for acetabular revision, while acetabular fixation failure was not encountered. We caution against selecting "new and improved" acetabular components without options for large diameter, constrained bearings, or DM bearings, even when enabling technology makes component positioning reliable.