ArticleInternational orthopaedics2022
Which femoral neck for a dual mobility cup? A biomechanical evaluation.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mixed Manufacturer Combination With a Cementless Hemispherical Dual Mobility Cup and Polished Taper-Slip Cemented Femoral Stem: Short- to Medium-Term Results in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty in Elderly Patients.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- The Avantage ® dual mobility cup in primary total hip arthroplasty: A registry study.Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Femoral Neck Design Does Not Impact Revision Risk After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Using a Dual Mobility Cup.Arthroplasty today · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate polyethylene (PE) damage and wear lesions to the chamfer of mobile components under mobile and fixed femoral neck impingement at the third articulation, and to determine which femoral neck characteristics should be considered with a dual mobility cup to limit those lesions.
methodsTwo femoral neck geometries (cylindrical and quadrangular) with two surface finishing roughness (rough and polished), and two head-to-neck ratios (28- and 22.2-mm diameter femoral heads) were evaluated in a hip simulator testing. For each characteristic, six femoral necks were tested with six dual mobility cups under fixed and mobile femoral neck impingement conditions. Chamfer PE damage and volumetric wear were evaluated and compared for each femoral neck characteristic and impingement condition.
resultsUnder mobile impingement condition, femoral neck characteristics did not significantly affect PE damage and wear lesions to the chamfer (p = 0.283 to 0.810). However, under fixed impingement condition, significantly higher PE damage and wear lesions to the chamfer were produced by the quadrangular geometry compared to the cylindrical geometry (p = 0.004 to 0.025). In addition, with the quadrangular geometry, rough surface finishing was demonstrated to increase volumetric wear of the chamfer (p = 0.009). No significant influence of head-to-neck ratio was observed on PE damage and wear lesions to the chamfer (p = 0.244 to 0.714). DISCUSSION: This biomechanical study emphasized that femoral neck characteristics are critical with dual mobility cup and tend to favor a cylindrical geometry particularly whether fixed impingement at the third articulation occurs.
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.