ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2025
Trends in Dual Mobility Cup Use and Outcomes in Primary and Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Nationwide Database Study.
Article in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Beyond jump distance: modular dual mobility versus single mobility cups in robotic total hip arthroplasty - simulation of hip kinematics and impingement.International orthopaedics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dual mobility cups (DMCs) have emerged as a promising option for enhancing hip stability in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). In this study, we aimed to determine the trends in DMC utilization, compare the outcomes of DMCs with those of conventional cups in primary THA, and assess DMC outcomes in revision THA. Methods: We collected data on all primary and revision THAs performed from 2015 to 2022 based on procedure codes from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment database. Revision THAs included both stem-and-cup revisions and cup-only revisions. Univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to identify the baseline characteristics influencing DMC usage. Propensity score matching was applied to compare periprosthetic complications (dislocation, periprosthetic fracture, periprosthetic joint infection, and revision) between patients receiving DMCs and those receiving conventional cups. Results: Among 70,760 primary THAs, 7,670 utilized DMCs, whereas 751 of 3,595 revision THAs adopted DMCs, reflecting an increasing trend up to 25.8% and 28.7% in 2022, respectively. In primary THA, DMC use increased significantly in patients aged 60 years and older, with univariate analysis indicating an increased use in patients with previous lumbar spine fusion, heart failure, diabetes, stroke, and hemiplegia. However, after adjusting for age, only age remained significant, with a 3% increase in the likelihood of DMC use in primary THA per year. Additionally, both DMC and conventional cups showed an age-related increase in dislocation rates, although the overall dislocation rate remained significantly lower in the DMC group compared to the conventional cups. Remarkably, 37.3% of cup revisions were performed using DMC. The Kaplan-Meier curve revealed a 3-year survival rate of 94.6% for re-revision in revision THAs using DMCs. Conclusions: DMC use increased with age and was used in up to 26% of primary THAs and 29% of revision THAs by 2022. In primary THA, DMC significantly reduced dislocation rates compared to conventional cups without increasing other periprosthetic or medical complications. DMCs also showed favorable outcomes in revision THAs, supporting their broader utilization in both primary and revision THAs.
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.