Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35767813›Full record

SynthesisClinical orthopaedics and related research2022

Do Dual-mobility Cups Reduce Revision Risk in Femoral Neck Fractures Compared With Conventional THA Designs? An International Meta-analysis of Arthroplasty Registries.

John E Farey, James Masters, Alana R Cuthbert, Pernille Iversen, Liza N van Steenbergen, Heather A Prentice, Sam Adie, Adrian Sayers, Michael R Whitehouse, Elizabeth W Paxton and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 11 institutions in 6 countries.

John E FareyInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, King George V Building, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5983-7006
James MastersOxford Trauma and Emergency Care, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Science, University of Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9663-8858
Alana R CuthbertAustralian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Pernille IversenDanish Hip Arthroplasty Registry, Aarhus, Denmark.
Liza N van SteenbergenDutch Arthroplasty Register, s'-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.
Heather A PrenticeSurgical Outcomes and Analysis, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, CA, USA.
Sam AdieSt George and Sutherland Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Adrian SayersBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Michael R WhitehouseBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Elizabeth W PaxtonSurgical Outcomes and Analysis, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, CA, USA.
Matthew L CostaOxford Trauma and Emergency Care, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Science, University of Oxford, UK.
Søren OvergaardDanish Hip Arthroplasty Registry, Aarhus, Denmark.
Cecilia RogmarkSwedish Arthroplasty Register, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Ola RolfsonSwedish Arthroplasty Register, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Ian A HarrisInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, King George V Building, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Kaiser Permanente · USNuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBThe University of Sydney · AUAustralian Orthopaedic Association · AULund University · SENetherlands Heart Registration · NLSutherland Hospital · AUThe Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register · SEUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDual-mobility cups in THA were designed to reduce prosthesis instability and the subsequent risk of revision surgery in high-risk patients, such as those with hip fractures. However, there are limited data from clinical studies reporting a revision benefit of dual-mobility over conventional THA. Collaboration between anthroplasty registries provides an opportunity to describe international practice variation and compare between-country, all-cause revision rates for dual-mobility and conventional THA. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We summarized observational data from multiple arthroplasty registries for patients receiving either a dual-mobility or conventional THA to ask: (1) Is dual-mobility use associated with a difference in risk of all-cause revision surgery compared with conventional THA? (2) Are there specific patient characteristics associated with dual-mobility use in the hip fracture population? (3) Has the use of dual-mobility constructs changed over time in patients receiving a THA for hip fracture?

methodsSix member registries of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (from Australia, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States) provided custom aggregate data reports stratified by acetabular cup type (dual-mobility or conventional THA) in primary THA for hip fracture between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2019; surgical approach; and patient demographic data (sex, mean age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and BMI). The cumulative percent revision and mortality were calculated for each registry. To determine a global hazard ratio of all-cause revision for dual-mobility compared with conventional THA designs, we used a pseudoindividual patient data approach to pool Kaplan-Meier prosthesis revision data from each registry and perform a meta-analysis. The pseudoindividual patient data approach is a validated technique for meta-analysis of aggregate time-to-event survival data, such as revision surgery, from multiple sources. Data were available for 15,024 dual-mobility THAs and 97,200 conventional THAs performed for hip fractures during the study period.

resultsAfter pooling of complete Kaplan-Meier survival data from all six registries, the cumulative percent revision for conventional THA was 4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.2% to 4.5%) and 4.7% (95% CI 4.3% to 5.3%) for dual-mobility THA at 5 years. We did not demonstrate a lower risk of all-cause revision for patients receiving dual-mobility over conventional THA designs for hip fracture in the meta-analysis once between-registry differences were adjusted for (HR 0.96 [95% CI 0.86 to 1.06]). A lower proportion of dual-mobility procedures were revised for dislocation than conventional THAs (0.9% versus 1.4%) but a higher proportion were revised for infection (1.2% versus 0.8%). In most registries, a greater proportion of dual-mobility THA patients were older, had more comorbidities, and underwent a posterior approach compared with conventional THA (p < 0.001). The proportion of dual-mobility THA used to treat hip fractures increased in each registry over time and constituted 21% (2438 of 11,874) of all THA procedures in 2019.

conclusionThe proportion of dual-mobility THAs in patients with hip fractures increased over time, but there was large variation in use across countries represented here. Dual-mobility cups were not associated with a reduction in the overall risk of revision surgery in patients with hip fractures. A randomized controlled trial powered to detect the incidence of dislocation and subsequent revision surgery is required to clarify the efficacy of dual-mobility cups to treat hip fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipFemoral Neck FracturesHip FracturesHip ProsthesisHumansProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegistriesReoperationRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID35767813
PMCPMC9473769
OpenAlexW4283030713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.