ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Dual mobility cups reduce dislocation in isolated cup revision.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Dual mobility total hip arthroplastyPeerJ · 2026Pooled it
- Satisfactory Survivorship and Clinical Outcomes After Acetabular Revision With the Three-Dimensional-Printed Porous Metal Monoblock Dual-Mobility Cup: A Retrospective Case Series With Mean 3 Years Follow-Up.Arthroplasty today · 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
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
backgroundDual-mobility cup (DMC) is gaining increasing attention in total hip arthroplasty (THA) revision due to its numerous advantages. However, the prognosis after isolated cup revision with DMC remains unclear. This study aimed to compare complications, focusing on dislocation, and analyze clinical outcomes in patients who underwent isolated cup revision after THA.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 119 patients who underwent isolated cup revision after THA and were followed up for ≥ 2 years from January 2009 to February 2020. Patient demographics, including age, sex, surgical approach, reasons for previous joint replacement surgery, and postoperative complications, were investigated. The patients were divided into DMC and conventional cup (CC) groups, and operative data and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Clinical outcomes were compared using the Harris hip score.
resultsForty-nine patients received DMC, and 70 received CC; the two groups had no difference in preoperative evaluation. Although the implants used significantly differed, there was no difference in the cup position. Six patients in the CC group had dislocations, but none had them in the DMC group (p = 0.042). Aseptic loosening was the most frequent postoperative complication but showed no significant difference between the two groups.
conclusionsDMC in revision THA can prevent dislocation compared to CC. In particular, DMC is considered a good treatment option in isolated cup revision wherein the surgeon can control the limited options.
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.