SynthesisEFORT open reviews2026
Outcomes of dual mobility cemented versus cementless cups in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in EFORT open reviews, 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
Purpose: With the increased use of dual mobility primary hip arthroplasty with cementless and cemented cups, we found different clinical and radiographic responses. The goal of this systematic review is to compare the types of acetabular fixation according to clinical and radiographic changes. Methods: We conducted a pairwise analysis comparing cementless versus cemented cups in a dual mobility hip arthroplasty. The outcomes of interest were pain at rest, pain during activity, functional score, wear rate, and cup migration up to 7 years of follow-up. Of the 596 studies identified, only 3 were eligible for inclusion in the study. Our search strategy was broad and carefully designed to capture all relevant studies. Results: We included two randomized controlled trials and one cohort study, amounting to 233 patients, of which 108 used cemented cups and 125 received cementless cups. There was no statistical significance (P > 0.05) in all outcomes analyzed between both types of acetabular fixation: pain at rest (SMD: 0.17; 95% CI: - 0.21 to 0.56), pain during activity (SMD: 0.36; 95% CI: - 0.03 to 0.74), functional score (MD: 1.72; 95% CI: - 0.51 to 3.95), cup migration (SMD: - 0.45; 95% CI:-0.96 to 0.05), and wear rate (MD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.40 to 0.13). Conclusion: Dual mobility primary total hip arthroplasty, whether using a cemented or uncemented cup, represents an effective treatment option, yielding similar clinical and radiographic outcomes.
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.