ReviewCureus2025
Dual Mobility Versus Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Dislocation and Re-operation Rates.
Review in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dual mobility (DM) implants have gained increasing attention in revision total hip arthroplasty and among patients at high risk of dislocation due to their enhanced stability. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the viability of dual mobility total hip replacement (DM-THR) by comparing dislocation and re-operation rates between patients treated with DM-THR and those treated with conventional total hip replacement (C-THR) for displaced femoral neck fractures. A systematic review of the published literature was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), PsycINFO, Cochrane databases, and Google Scholar to identify studies comparing DM-THR with C-THR, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Nine studies, comprising a total of 9,816 patients with femoral neck fractures, were analysed. Of these, 7,197 patients underwent C-THR, while 2,619 received DM-THR. The cumulative dislocation rate was 1.35%, with a dislocation rate of 1.5% for C-THR and 0.8% for DM-THR. The cumulative reoperation rate was 3.61%, with reoperation rates of 3.87% for C-THR and 2.9% for DM-THR. Forest plots from the meta-analysis favoured DM-THR over C-THR (P < 0.05, 95% confidence interval (CI)) in terms of dislocation rate; however, no significant difference was observed in the re-operation rate. Further large-scale, high-quality randomised controlled trials with long-term follow-up and cost analysis are required to establish DM-THR as a viable and effective option for femoral neck fractures.
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.