The Stability Paradox: Navigating the Fine Line Between Innovation and Complication

Why simplicity is the key to successful innovation... and how we do it.

In engineering, there is a fundamental law: Every solution introduces a new set of problems.

You strengthen a material, you often make it more brittle. You increase the horsepower of an engine, you increase the thermal load. There is no such thing as a “free lunch” in physics.

Yet, in orthopedic surgery, we often fall into the trap of believing that new technology is purely additive. We assume that if we introduce a device to solve Problem A, Problem A will disappear without consequence.

We are wrong.

I have spent my career designing implants to solve specific biomechanical failures. I hold patents on Dual Mobility systems. I believe in the technology. But I also believe that indiscriminate innovation is dangerous.

In our race to eliminate hip dislocation, the single most terrifying complication for a patient, we embraced a solution that may have engineered a new, silent epidemic.

This is the Stability Paradox.

---

The Silver Bullet Trap

Dislocation following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a disaster. Historically, rates have been reported as high as 25%. It is a mechanical failure that devastates patient confidence and ruins outcomes.

Enter Dual Mobility (DM) bearings. The concept is elegant engineering: a large polyethylene head moving within a metal shell, increasing the “jump distance” required for the hip to dislocate. The industry (myself included) adopted it rapidly. It became the default answer for the “high-risk” patient.

But as an engineer, I look at interfaces. Interfaces are points of failure.

A standard hip replacement has one articulation. A Dual Mobility hip has two. It also has a modular liner that must seat perfectly into a shell. Every new interface is a potential site for corrosion, fretting, and wear.

We started seeing something troubling. Patients presenting not with dislocation, but with unexplained pain and “adverse local tissue reaction” (ALTR), the hallmark of metal corrosion. We published a case series on Mechanically Assisted Crevice Corrosion (MACC) at the liner-shell interface of modular DM constructs.

We solved the dislocation problem, but we introduced a corrosion problem. We traded a mechanical failure for a chemical one.

The Data: Complexity vs. Simplicity

This led me to ask a simple engineering question: Do we actually need the complexity of Dual Mobility to achieve stability?

Or can we achieve the same result with simpler geometry?

We conducted a study comparing Dual Mobility bearings against Standard Single-Articulation Bearings using large diameter femoral heads ($\ge$ 40mm). We reviewed 257 consecutive revision THAs.

The hypothesis was that the advanced Dual Mobility technology would outperform the standard big heads.

The data proved otherwise.

• Dislocation Rate (Standard Large Heads $\ge$ 40mm): 5.7%.

• Dislocation Rate (Dual Mobility $\ge$ 40mm): 6.9%.

There was no statistical difference. In fact, the “simpler” solution (large standard heads) trended toward better stability.

Furthermore, we found that the single greatest predictor of dislocation wasn’t the bearing type, it was the Head-to-Cup Ratio. Geometry, once again, dictated the outcome.

Prudent Innovation

This brings us back to the core philosophy of this newsletter: Precision over Hype.

I design Dual Mobility implants. I use them. But I use them judiciously. I reserve them for the specific anatomical outliers where a standard large head simply won’t work.

If I can achieve the same stability with a 40mm or 44mm ceramic head on a single polyethylene liner, I will choose that construct every time. Why? Because it eliminates an interface. It removes the risk of intraprosthetic dislocation. It removes the risk of MACC at the modular junction.

Occam’s Razor applies to surgery: The simplest solution that solves the problem is usually the correct one.

The Bottom Line

Innovation isn’t just about adding new tools to the toolbox. True innovation requires the discipline to know when not to use them.

We must stop chasing “zero” complications by introducing complex systems that carry their own, often delayed, failure modes. We must look at the data, respect the physics, and realize that sometimes, the best engineering is the simplest engineering.

Don’t engineer a new problem just to solve an old one.

R. Michael Meneghini, MD

If you liked this, share it with a colleague who is obsessed with the latest shiny object. Next, I’m going after one of the biggest “sacred cows” in orthopedics: The Tourniquet. The data says we’re wrong, so why are we still using it?