SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024
Modular versus monobloc dual mobility components for primary cementless total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of implants' survival, complication rates, clinical and radiographic outcomes.
Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mid-Term Analysis of Serum Metal Ion Levels Comparison Between Monoblock and Modular Dual Mobility Components: A Source for Concern?Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Monoblock and Modular Dual-Mobility Constructs Versus Standard Cups with Femoral Heads ≥ 36 mm in Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture: A 10-Year Comparative Registry Study of 10-Year Survival Estimates.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Outcomes of Indication-Based Reconstruction Strategies in a Retrospective Observational Cohort of Patients with Paprosky Type IIC Acetabular Defects.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Recurrent Ceramic Femoral Head Fracture in Dual Mobility Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Early Failure of a Novel Modular Dual Mobility Liner After Metal Release: Clinical Presentation and Detailed Retrieval Analysis.Arthroplasty today · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe dual mobility cup (DMC) reduces the dislocation rates in total hip arthroplasty (THA). DMC systems include anatomical (non-modular or monoblock) (ADM) and modular dual mobility (MDM) components (Stryker Orthopaedics, Mahwah, NJ, USA). This review aims to assess differences between these two types of DMC implants concerning dislocation and revision rates, as well as patient-reported outcomes.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reports data from patients undergoing primary THA using MDM and/or ADM implants. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we analyzed articles from Science Direct/Scopus, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We compared dislocation rates, revisions for any reason, aseptic loosening, infections, fractures, and functional outcomes between ADM and MDM components.
resultsEleven studies were considered eligible for further analysis. A total of 3369 patients (mean age = 65.4 years) underwent primary THA, including 3386 DMC implants. The mean follow-up for the MDM and ADM groups was 2.9 years and 3.9 years, respectively. The study revealed one dislocation in the MDM and none in the ADM. By proportion metanalysis, the review did not show statistical differences in all-cause revisions (p = 0.93, [CI [0.01;0.02]) or periprosthetic fractures (p = 0.18, CI [0.01;0.02]).
conclusionsMDM and ADM systems, both, represent safe DM options regarding dislocation, all-causes revisions and functional outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39549099What 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.