ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2025
Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Dual Mobility Cups for Failed Hip Fracture Fixation.
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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Backgroud: Conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the most common treatment for older patients following failed hip fracture fixation. However, the dislocation rate after conversion THA is higher than that after primary THA for arthritis. Recent studies have reported that a dual-mobility (DM) cup has a lower dislocation rate than fixed-bearing (FB) THA. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of conversion THA using a DM cup for failed hip fracture fixation. Methods: Between April 2015 and June 2021, 116 patients underwent conversion THA for failed hip fracture fixation at a tertiary hospital. Among them, 83 and 33 cases using the FB and DM cups, respectively, were included in the study. The following outcomes were assessed and compared between the 2 groups: reoperation, dislocation, intraprosthetic dissociation (IPD), periprosthetic fracture, deep joint infection, and modified Harris hip score (mHHS). Results: There were no significant differences between the FB and DM groups in terms of radiological outcomes, reoperation, IPD, periprosthetic fracture, deep joint infection, or mHHS. In particular, there was no statistically significant difference in the dislocation rate between the FB and DM groups (6.02% and 3.03%, respectively; Conclusions: The dislocation rate in the DM group was lower than that in the FB group, with a relative risk of 0.50, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. These findings suggest that DM implants may be potentially beneficial options in such cases; however, further research is required to confirm this trend.
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.