ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2024
The Avantage ® dual mobility cup in primary total hip arthroplasty: A registry study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2024. 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: Avantage Cup has been widely used in dual mobility implants. However, in Swedish Registry, the outcome of the Avantage Cup is reported with higher implants revision compared to control. The aim of our study was to verify if the same results are present in the Registry of Prosthetic Orthopedic Implants (RIPO) of Emilia Romagna (ER, Italy), as the Avantage cup was the most implanted dual mobility cup for a long follow-up reported in this Registry (2000-2012). Furthermore, we assessed the survival rate of the implant over the time. Methods: We included all patients that underwent a primary THA using the Avantage cup during the period 2000-2020 in RIPO Registry. The survivorship of the primary THA implants was calculated and plotted according to Kaplan-Meier method. Results: 886 Avantage cups were included in the analysis. During the observational period 44 hips were revised. The most common reasons for revision were: periprosthetic fractures (PPF) (n = 7, 0.8 %), deep infection (n = 7, 0.8 %), and cup aseptic loosening (n = 13, 1.5 %).The survival rate of the implant was 96.8 % (95.3-97.8) at 5 years, 95.7 at 10 years (94.0-97.0) and 92.1 at 15 years (88.5-94.6). Conclusion: In conclusion, this study has demonstrated that the Avantage cup in primary hip arthroplasty implanted with a "friendly" femoral stem granted satisfactory long-term survival. Therefore, in the Swedish Registry, the cause of the poor results presented for Avantage Cup could be the thick, rough neck stem of the widely used Lubinus stem.
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.