ArticleActa orthopaedica2018
Do dual-mobility cups cemented into porous tantalum shells reduce the risk of dislocation after revision surgery?
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cemented dual mobility component in newly implanted porous tantalum shells for severe acetabular defects: medium-term outcomes from a high-volume single-surgeon series.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- The Modular Cup-in-Cup Construct in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Dual-mobility implants in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2024Review
- Porous Tantalum Acetabular Cups in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: What Has Been the Experience So Far?-A Systematic Literature Review.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Cage Augmentation of the Retained Acetabular Shell with a Dual Mobility Cup using the Double Socket Technique.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2024Article
- Does Using Highly Porous Tantalum in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Reduce the Rate of Periprosthetic Joint Infection? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Arthroplasty today · 2024Article
- Removing Cemented Dual Mobility Liners From Acetabular Components: A Technical Tip for a Challenging Surgical Problem.Arthroplasty today · 2023Article
- Is Cemented Dual-Mobility Cup a Reliable Option in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- [Partial or full component exchange in hip revision? : The relevance of off-label use and mix & match].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022Review
- Tripolar Constrained and Dual Mobility Liners Are Both Successful When Cemented Into Tantalum Acetabular Revision Shells in Complex Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2022Article
- Femoral Head and Liner Exchange in Patients with Atraumatic Dislocation. Results of a Retrospective Study with 6 Years Follow-Up.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- EFORT recommendations for off-label use, mix & match and mismatch in hip and knee arthroplasty.EFORT open reviews · 2021Review
- Global diversity in bearings in primary THA.EFORT open reviews · 2020Review
- Comparison of Constrained Acetabular Components and Dual Mobility Cups in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Literature Review.Hip & pelvis · 2020Review
- Causes of and treatment options for dislocation following total hip arthroplasty.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2019Review
- 20 years of porous tantalum in primary and revision hip arthroplasty-time for a critical appraisal.Acta orthopaedica · 2018Article
- Cementing a Monoblock Dual-Mobility Implant into a Fully Porous Cup in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty to Address Hip Instability: Surgical Technique.JBJS essential surgical techniquesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose - Dual-mobility cups (DMCs) reduce the risk of dislocation and porous tantalum (TM) shells show favorable osseointegration after acetabular revision surgery, yet the combination of these implants has not been studied. We hypothesized that (1) cementing a DMC into a TM shell decreases the risk of dislocation; (2) DMCs cemented into TM shells are not at greater risk of re-revision; (3) liberation of tantalum ions is marginal after use of this combined technique. Patients and methods - We investigated the outcome in 184 hips (184 patients) after acetabular revision surgery with TM shells, fitted either with DMCs (n = 69), or with standard poly-ethylene (PE) liners (n = 115). Chart follow-up was complete for all patients, and the occurrence of dislocations and re-revisions was recorded. 20 were deceased, 50 were unable to attend follow-up, leaving 114 for assessment of hip function after 4.9 (0.5-8.9) years, radiographs were obtained in 99, and tantalum concentrations in 84 patients. Results - 1 patient with a DMC had a dislocation, whereas 14 patients with PE liners experienced at least 1 dislocation. 11 of 15 re-revisions in the PE group were necessitated by dislocations, whereas none of the 2 re-revisions in the DMC group was performed for this reason. Hence, dislocation-free survival after 4 years was 99% (95% CI 96-100) in the DMC group, whereas it was 88% (CI 82-94, p = 0.01) in the PE group. We found no radiographic signs of implant failure in any patient. Mean tantalum concentrations were 0.1 µl/L (CI 0.05-0.2) in the DMC group and 0.1 µg/L (CI 0.05-0.2) in the PE group. Interpretation - Cementing DMCs into TM shells reduces the risk of dislocation after acetabular revision surgery without jeopardizing overall cup survival, and without enhancing tantalum release.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.