ArticleArthroplasty today2022
Tripolar Constrained and Dual Mobility Liners Are Both Successful When Cemented Into Tantalum Acetabular Revision Shells in Complex Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 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
- Review
- "Cup-in-Cup Technique" in the Management of Acetabular Defects in Hip Arthroplasty: Early to Midterm Results.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2025Article
- Survival Analysis and Failure Modes of Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Cemented Semi-Retentive Acetabular Cup.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInstability is a common complication after revision total hip arthroplasty. Tripolar constrained (TC) and dual mobility (DM) liners cemented into tantalum acetabular revision (TM) shells are established alternatives that reduce instability risk. This study compares outcomes of TC and DM liners cemented into TM shells in complex revision hip replacements.
methodsFifty cases using a TM shell and a TC or DM cemented liner with at least 12 months of follow-up were identified. There were 25 TC and 25 DM liners. Clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes were collected. Reasons for re-revision and failures were analyzed.
resultsThe average age was 73 years in the TC group and 75 years in the DM group. The median follow-up duration was 50 months (23 - 96) and 13 months (12 - 21) for the TC and DM groups, respectively. The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 37 to 61 for the TC group and from 51 to 73 in the DM group at the last review. Two TC cases required revision for wear and liner failure. One DM insert was changed at reoperation for periprosthetic femur fracture. There were no failures of cement fixation in either group and no revisions for cup loosening.
conclusionsIn complex revision hip replacement with a history of instability or judged to have a high risk of instability postoperatively, TC and DM liners cemented into tantalum revision shells are both successful, giving acceptable results. The improved arc of movement with DM liners, minimizing impingement, makes them preferable except when there is a global abductor deficiency or severe joint laxity.
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.