ArticleArthroplasty today2025
Intraprosthetic Dislocation Following Dual Mobility Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Retrieval Analysis Study.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2025. 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: Dual mobility (DM) implants in total hip arthroplasty provide excellent range of motion with low dislocation rates. A complication of this design is intraprosthetic dislocation (IPD), where the polyethylene (PE) liner dissociates from the femoral head. In older designs, IPD occurred due to a small head size and late PE wear with head-capture-mechanism failure. Routine retrieval analysis identified concerns regarding IPD of modern implants, and scant reporting in the literature led to this retrospective study. Methods: A total of 124 (110 primary, 14 revision) DM implants (mean in situ time 2.0 ± 3.1 years) revised by 20 surgeons across Western Australia between July 2014 and August 2023 were assessed. Demographics, clinical information, mechanisms of failure, and observations at revision arthroplasty were analyzed. The retrieval analysis included an assessment of metal and PE wear mechanisms, corrosion between modular components, and extent of bony attachment to acetabular shells. Results: There were 11 cases of IPD. Of these, 8 (73%) had a documented preceding failed closed reduction, with the remaining 3 revised due to trunnionosis, loosening, and joint instability. Nine out of 11 (82%) cases were female. Although metallic wear and inner-lip impingement of PE bearings were observed, there was no obvious failure mechanism for the other 3 retrieved IPD implants. Conclusions: Most cases of IPD in DM implants occur after failed closed reduction in the setting of a hip dislocation, suggesting an iatrogenic cause of IPD. No implant-related features could be defined for the remaining cases. Recognizing common failure modes can help with the prevention and treatment of this complication.
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.