ArticleSICOT-J2026
No dislocation rate gap between single and two-stage revisions with a cementless Dual Mobility Cup.
Article in SICOT-J, 2026. 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
introductionA major complication of hip arthroplasty is dislocation. In revision, the rate of dislocation is even higher, especially among patients with hip prosthetic joint infection treated with two-stage surgery. The utility of a dual-mobility cup (DMC) in revision was already demonstrated but with a relatively low level of confidence due to the lack of direct comparison with other surgical techniques. We hypothesized that the dislocation rate for patients undergoing cementless DMC total hip arthroplasty (THA) would be similar between single and two-stage revisions.
methodsWe conducted a single-center, retrospective, and case-control study from January 2011 through December 2020. During this period, 220 patients underwent a revision of their total hip arthroplasty. Among these, 40 patients experienced THA two-stage revision. This group constituted the cases in this case-control study. Each of the 40 cases was matched with 2 controls, single-stage surgery, on age, sex, and Paprosky grade, and we defined the groups according to primary endpoint: dislocation rate.
resultsThere was no significant difference in dislocation rate between two-stage and single-stage revisions (7.5% vs 3.8%, p = 0.40). In univariate analysis, auto-inflammatory disease and immunosuppressive agent use were risk factors for dislocation. There was no significant difference in dislocation-free survival (log-rank test, p = 0.40) or re-revision (log-rank test, p = 0.92) between single-stage and two-stage revision THA. At the end of follow-up, the mortality rate did not differ between the two groups. No chronic instability was noted at the last follow-up (80.4 ± 38.5 months) in both groups.
conclusionThe dislocation rate was similar between single and two-stage revision THA using DMC. Further studies are warranted to highlight the potential benefits of DMC in preventing dislocation in two-stage revision THA.
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.