ArticleArthroplasty today2023
The Performance of Primary Dual-Mobility Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Aged 55 Years and Younger: A Systematic Review.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2023. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Monoblock dual-mobility cups in total hip arthroplasty for low-grade hip dysplasia: a retrospective series with a mean ten years follow-up.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of functional outcomes and complications in dual mobility versus large femoral heads in total hip arthroplasty.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- Dual-mobility with modular components for primary total hip arthroplasty in bilateral bony ankylosis of the hips: A case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dual-mobility (DM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) combines the stabilization advantage provided by large head articulation with the low friction advantage provided by small head articulation. There is momentum for DM to be used in a wider selection of patients, with some advocating for DM to be the routine primary total hip construct. Further investigation is needed to determine whether the use of DM in younger adults is validated by aggregate data. Our objective was to review the literature for the clinical performance of DM THA in patients aged 55 years and younger. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Inclusion in the review required clinical outcome reporting for DM primary THA in ambulatory patients aged 55 years or younger. The risk of bias was appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions and the quality of the evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Results: Across a sample of 1048 cases, the frequency weighted term of follow-up was 87.7 months. The pooled rate of revision was 9.5%. The Harris Hip Score significantly improved from 49.1 preoperatively to 93 postoperatively. The Postel-Merle d'Aubigné score significantly improved from 10.5 preoperatively to 17.1 postoperatively. Conclusions: The literature demonstrates satisfactory short-term outcomes with a mitigated risk of dislocation for DM used as primary THA in patients aged 55 years and younger. The current findings suggest that third-generation designs provide reduced rates of intraprosthetic dislocation and improved survivorship.
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.