ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2025
"Cup-in-Cup Technique" in the Management of Acetabular Defects in Hip Arthroplasty: Early to Midterm Results.
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: Complex acetabular defects (Paprosky II and III) present a challenge in total hip arthroplasty (THA). We used a "cup-in-cup" (CiC) construct wherein a trabecular metal cup (TMC) was press-fit and a dual mobility cup (DMC) was cemented within it. We added a porous acetabular augment (cup-in-cup with augment; CiCA) or a cage (cup-cage-cup; CCC) when required. Methods: We reviewed patients who underwent complex acetabular reconstruction at our center between January 2012 to December 2021, with 2 to 11 years of follow-up. We assessed radiological restoration of the center of rotation using digital templating software (TraumaCad), functional outcome using the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Forgotten Joint Score, and evaluated survival of the construct over 2-11 years by examining reoperation rates for any reason. Results: Among 1,532 THAs performed in 1,448 patients (578 revisions), a TMC was used for acetabular reconstruction in 82 patients: 55 CiC, 15 CiCA, and 12 CCC were done. Eleven hips had Paprosky type IIC, 52 had IIIA, and 19 had IIIB acetabular defects. The mean cup size used was 64.10 ± 4.68 mm, the mean change in vertical and medial offset from the opposite side was 5.27 ± 4.68 mm and -1.21 ± 5.33 mm, respectively. The HHS improved from 49.01 ± 7.10 to 82.45 ± 6.66 at a mean follow-up of 54.7 months. Three-year survival was 96%, and 86% of the constructs survived at the latest follow-up. Conclusions: The TMC construct is a good option for Paprosky type II and III acetabular defects. Cementing a DMC restored optimal hip biomechanics. Our study provides robust data supporting its selection as the standard of care for addressing complex acetabular defects of all causes.
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.