ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2023
Dual Mobility Total Hip Replacements in Young Patients- A Systematic Review.
Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is little consensus on outcomes of dual Mobility total hip replacement (DM-THR) in younger patients. We performed a systematic review to examine this. Methods: A systematic review of all observational studies and randomised controlled trials of patients under 70 with primary DM-THR in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pubmed, Cochrane was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Collected data included demographics, revision, dislocation and infection rates and functional scores. Results: Twelve papers studying 738 DM-THR in 664 patients were included. The mean patient age was 46.9 years (13.5-69.0), with 319 (48.0%) being female and 419 (52.0%) being male. After an average follow-up of 90.0 months (1-371 months), the revision rate was 12.7% (84 hips), 0 dislocations were reported but 2.5% (15 hips) underwent intra-prosthetic dislocation. 32.1% hip revisions were due to aseptic loosening. Conclusion: Limited literature surrounding the use of DM-THR suggests favourable stability but higher revision rates than conventional THR.
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.