ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2025
Comparison of Outcomes Between Modular Dual Mobility and Conventional Hip Implants in Primary, Elective Total Hip Arthroplasty.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionModular dual mobility designs (MDM) are designed to reduce the risk of postoperative dislocations following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study investigated both the usage and outcomes (ie, patient-reported outcomes and complications) associated with MDM hips compared with conventional implant designs.
methodsPatients who underwent a THA at a single, tertiary, orthopaedic specialty hospital between January 2019 and June 2022 were included. Primary outcomes of interest were compared between MDM and conventional hip designs and included complication rates, dislocation rates, clinical outcomes, and the hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint replacement (HOOS, JR).
resultsA total of 2869 patients (88% conventional THA) were included in this study. Modular dual mobility hip utilization increased 117% during the study period. Patients in the MDM group were often older females (P < 0.001) with concomitant lumbar pathology (P = 0.034). None of the MDM hips dislocated in the first 30 days post THA compared with 0.4% of the conventional hips. Despite markedly lower hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint replacement scores in the MDM group, the number of patients reaching the minimally clinically important difference was similar (P = 0.915).
conclusionMDM patients experience lower rates of dislocation compared with those receiving conventional implants. Despite worse clinical outcomes and increased all-cause emergency department utilization in the MDM group, multivariate regression suggests that these outcomes were associated with the implant being used in an older, sicker population instead of the implant itself. The results suggest similar overall outcomes and a lower dislocation rate for patients who received an MDM hip.
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.