SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Outcomes of dual mobility versus conventional total hip arthroplasty for patients with femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis including registry data.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. 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.
- 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
- Matters arising on "Outcomes of dual mobility versus conventional total hip arthroplasty for patients with femoral neck fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis including registry data".Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Functional and Safety Outcomes of Third-Generation Zimmer Biomet G7Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Are There Benefits of Total Hip Arthroplasty with Dual-Mobility Cups Compared to Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures in the Geriatric Population? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared the long-term efficacy and safety of dual mobility (DM) prostheses versus conventional total hip arthroplasty (c-THA) in femoral neck fracture (FNF) patients. FNFs have a high rate of post-surgical complications, with no consensus on the optimal prosthetic design. This analysis synthesizes the available evidence to address this gap.
methodsWe systematically searched Cochrane, PubMed, and Embase databases for studies comparing DM and c-THA in FNF patients. Outcomes included dislocation, revision, heterotopic ossification, infection, mortality, peri-prosthetic fracture, quality of life, and functional scores. Relative risk (RR) was used for binary endpoints, while mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated for continuous endpoints. A random-effects model with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was applied. Statistical analyses were conducted using R version 4.4.0.
resultsWe included three randomized controlled trials and ten cohort studies, amounting to 21,585 patients, of which 4887 received and 16,698 received c-THA. Compared to c-THA, DM showed lower dislocation (RR 0.47; 95% CI: 0.34-0.65; p < 0.001) and revision rates (RR 0.77; 95% CI: 0.67-0.89; p < 0.001) but higher heterotopic ossification (RR 1.98; 95% CI: 1.22-3.20; p < 0.05) and worse functional scores at six to nine months (SMD 1.65; 95% CI: 0.75-2.55; p < 0.001). Meta-regression analysis showed no impact of the posterior approach on dislocation outcomes (p = 0.76).
conclusionDM reduces dislocation and revision risks but increases heterotopic ossification and shows worse short-term functional outcomes. Larger randomized trials are needed to validate long-term efficacy and safety.
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.