ArticleSICOT-J2024
Excellent survival of second-generation uncemented dual mobility cups compared with first-generation cups at a minimum of 10 years follow-up in primary total hip arthroplasty.
Article in SICOT-J, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mid-Term Outcomes of a Next-Generation Modular Acetabular System in Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Dual Mobility Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Comparative Study from a Tertiary Centre.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes and Survivorship of Three Modular Dual Mobility Implants in Primary Total Hip Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Modern Dual Mobility Implants in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Stability, Survival, and Ion Safety Evaluation: The Comprehensive Review.JB & JS open accessReview
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
introductionThis study aimed to compare the revision rate and long-term survival between two generations of uncemented dual mobility cup (DMC) from the same manufacturer in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) at a minimum follow-up of 10 years.
methodsThis retrospective monocentric study included all THA performed with an uncemented DMC from the same company. The cohort included 150 patients with 22 first-generation DMC and 128 second-generation DMC. The coating of the second generation was a double-coating Plasma spray of Titanium and Hydroxyapatite (HAP), compared to the coating of alumina and HAP for the first generation. The mean follow-up was 14.2 ± 1.2 years. The mean age was 76.0 ± 10.1 years. The Harris hip score (HHS), complications, and revisions were collected at the last follow-up. Ten- and fifteen-year Kaplan-Meier survival was calculated.
resultsAt the last follow-up, the mean HHS was 83.2 ± 9.1. There were two acetabular loosenings with the old coating (9.1%) and one case with the new one (0.78%) (p = 0.056). There was one extra-prosthetic dislocation (0.67%) and one postoperative infection (0.67%). Survival without acetabular revision at 10 and 15 years was 90.9% for the 1st generation and 99.2% for the 2nd generation (p = 0.009).
conclusionSurvival without acetabular revision was significantly higher at 10 and 15 years of follow-up with the second generation of DMC with plasma-sprayed titanium and HAP coating compared to the first generation of DMC coat. The dislocation was uncommon, thanks to the dual mobility concept. This second generation of uncemented DMC can be safely used in primary THA.
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.