ArticleInternational orthopaedics2024
The use of dual mobility cups in revision total hip arthroplasty for failed large head metal-on-metal bearings.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimum five years outcomes of modular dual mobility in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.International orthopaedics · 2025Pooled it
- Inflammatory Pseudotumor After Total Hip Arthroplasty-An Increasingly Recognized Complication.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Review
- High Complication Rates Following Revision of Aseptic Metal-on-Metal Hips to Dual Mobility Bearings.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Isolated acetabular cup revision in Metal-on-Metal total hip arthroplasty: a low-complication strategy feasible in only half of cases.International orthopaedics · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRevision of failed large head metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging procedure particularly to reconstruct acetabular bone defect due to osteolysis and to achieve hip stability due to soft tissue damages, both potentially caused by adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD). This study aimed to evaluate the outcome of dual mobility cup (DMC) constructs in revision THA for failed large head MoM bearings with a special attention to the occurrence of dislocation or re-revision.
methodsBetween 2015 and 2019, 57 patients (64 THAs, 41 men, mean age = 65 ± 10 years) underwent revision for MoM THA with the use of DMC were prospectively included in our total joint registry. Mean time to revision was 11 ± 2.5 years. The causes for revision were adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD) in 49 THAs (76%), painful hip with elevated blood cobalt-chromium ions in seven (11%), and acetabular aseptic loosening in eight (13%). The revision was complete in 22 THAs (34%) and acetabular only in 42 (66%). Clinical and radiographic outcomes, complications, and re-revisions were evaluated at most recent follow-up.
resultsAt mean follow-up of six ± 1.5 years, the pre- to postoperative Harris Hip Score improved from 74 ± 19 to 92 ± 4 (p = 0.004). Complications occurred in 11 cases (17%): five dislocations (8%), three periprosthetic infections (5%), two aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (3%), and two periprosthetic fractures (3%). Re-revision was required in six cases (9%).
conclusionThe use of DMC is a reliable option to prevent instability and ensure a stable acetabular reconstruction in revision THA for failed large head MoM bearings. However, dislocation after revision remains a concern, particularly in cases of severe soft tissue damage related to ARMD.
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.