ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2025
Comparative analysis of functional outcomes and complications in dual mobility versus large femoral heads in total hip arthroplasty.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 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
Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a common intervention for severe hip disorders. However, postoperative instability and dislocation continue to present significant challenges. To address these issues, dual mobility (DM) cups and large femoral heads (LFH) have been employed, each offering unique biomechanical benefits. Methods: This prospective study involved 120 patients undergoing THA, with participants evenly split into two groups: Dual Mobility (DM, n = 60) and large femoral heads (LFH, n = 60). Assessments were performed using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and a comprehensive range of motion (ROM) evaluation at 6, 12, and 24 months. The statistical analysis utilised t-tests, chi-square tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests, establishing significance at p < 0.05. Results: The DM group showed better postoperative range of motion (ROM) across all measures, achieving statistically significant enhancements (p < 0.001) when compared to the other group. The average HHS increased by 47.8 points in the DM group, while the LFH group saw an improvement of 42.53 points. The DM group experienced no dislocations but had two instances of intraprosthetic dislocation, whereas the LFH group experienced four dislocations. The overall complication rates were comparable (p = 0.595), though the types of complications differed between the two groups. Conclusion: Dual mobility total hip arthroplasty (THA) offers enhanced functional recovery, improved range of motion (ROM), and a lower risk of dislocation compared to LFH designs. The biomechanical stability of dual mobility implants makes them a favoured option in THA, suggesting a need for further multicenter research to confirm these findings.
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.