ArticleInternational orthopaedics2022
Polyethylene wear of dual mobility cups: a comparative analysis based on patient-specific finite element modeling.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Reduced polyethylene wear in dual mobility versus single mobility hip implants: Results from quantitative and qualitative scanning electron microscopy analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Investigation of contact behavior on a model of the dual-mobility artificial hip joint for Asians in different inner liner thicknesses.World journal of orthopedics · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
- Article
- Which femoral neck for a dual mobility cup? A biomechanical evaluation.International orthopaedics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeConcerns remain about potential increased wear with dual mobility cups related to the multiple articulations involved in this specific design of implant. This finite element analysis study aimed to compare polyethylene (PE) wear between dual mobility cup and conventional acetabular component, and between the use of conventional ultra-high molecular weight PE (UHMWPE) and highly cross-linked PE (XPLE).
methodsPatient-specific finite element modeling was developed for 15 patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Five acetabular components were 3D modeled and compared in THA constructs replicating existing implants: a dual mobility cup with a 22.2-mm-diameter femoral head against UHMWPE or XLPE (DM22PE or DM22XL), a conventional cup with a 22.2-mm-diameter femoral head against UHMWPE (SD22PE) and a conventional cup with a 32-mm-diameter femoral head against UHMWPE or XLPE (SD32PE or SD32XL).
resultsDM22PE produced 4.6 times and 5.1 times more volumetric wear than SD32XL and DM22XL (p < 0.0001, Cohen's d = 6.97 and 7.11; respectively). However, even if significant, the differences in volumetric wear between DM22XL and SD32XL as well as between DM22PE and SD22PE or SD32PE were small according to their effect size (p < 0.0001, Cohen's |d|= 0.48 to 0.65) and could be therefore considered as clinically negligible.
conclusionWhen using XLPE instead of UHMWPE, dual mobility cup with a 22.2-mm-diameter femoral head produced a similar amount of volumetric wear than conventional acetabular component with a 32-mm-diameter femoral head against XLPE. Therefore, XLPE is advocated in dual mobility cup to improve its wear performance.
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.