ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Comparison between dual mobility and conventional total hip arthroplasty in East Asian, using nationwide database.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma 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.
- Comparative outcomes of Forte versus Delta ceramic bearings in total hip arthroplasty using a national database.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDual mobility (DM) design increases the effective femoral head size and improve stability with increased jump distance and without impingement. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and revision rate between conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) and DM. MATERIALS AND
methodsUsing the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, patients ≥ 19 years who underwent primary THA between 2015 and 2019 (n = 47,119) were identified. Cumulative incidences of dislocation, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), periprosthetic fracture were evaluated. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression ratios (HRs) were used to compare cup revision, stem revision and any revision within 6 years follow-up.
resultsIn adjusted analyses, DM showed a lower risk of dislocation (aHR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.42–0.77) and higher risk of PJI (aHR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.04–2.05), compared to conventional THA within 1 year, as well as within 30 days, 90 days. There were no significant differences in risk of cup revision (aHR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.39 to 1.11), stem revision (aHR = 1.38, 95% CI = 0.95 to 2.01) and any revision (aHR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.30).
conclusionsWe found a lower risk of dislocation and a higher risk of PJI for DM compared with conventional THA. And there was no difference in the overall revision rate between both groups. Our findings suggested that we can recommend DM when used, especially in patients with high risk of dislocation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41359268What 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.