ArticleArthroplasty today2024
No Decrease in Early Survivorship of Dual Mobility Implants in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dual mobility (DM) implants in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) have gained recent popularity; however, safety concerns persist. The purpose of this study was twofold: 1) assess trends in DM implant adoption; and 2) evaluate the impact of modular DM implants on dislocation and all-cause revision rates at short-term follow-up. Methods: This retrospective study identified patients in our institutional arthroplasty database who underwent primary posterior approach THA for degenerative conditions from November 2013 to December 2020. Patients undergoing primary THA for fracture were excluded. Patients were divided into two cohorts: modular DM and non-DM implants. Annual DM utilization and dislocation rates were recorded. Patient records were reviewed to determine implant selection and identify indications for dislocations and reoperations. Results: Institutional adoption was rapid, increasing from 3.4% in 2013 to 47.1% in 2020. Of the 4548 primary THA cases from 2013 to 2020, 2859 (62.9%) had minimum one-year follow-up data for inclusion. There were 724 (25.3%) with DM implants and 2135 (74.7%) with non-DM implants. The DM group had a significantly lower dislocation rate (0.14% vs 0.84%, Conclusions: From 2013 to 2020, DM implant utilization in primary THA steadily increased. Use of modular DM implants is associated with a decreased dislocation rate without compromised survivorship at one-year follow-up when compared to non-DM implants. No instances of modular DM-specific complications were identified; however, longer-term surveillance is necessary to verify these findings. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III.
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.