ReviewCureus2026
Dual Mobility vs Constrained Liners in Managing Instability After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness Model.
Review in Cureus, 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
Recurrent dislocation following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a major clinical challenge. Dual-mobility (DM) constructs and constrained liners (CLs) are commonly used to improve stability; however, direct comparative evidence remains limited. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Multiple databases were searched from January 2000 to October 2025 for studies comparing DM constructs and CLs in revision THA. The primary outcomes were dislocation and aseptic re-revision, while secondary outcomes included implant survivorship, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), patient- and construct-related risk factors, and non-revision complications. Due to heterogeneity in study designs, results were synthesized descriptively. Ten comparative observational studies comprising 2,046 revision hips (1,237 DM and 809 CL) were included. DM constructs were associated with lower reported dislocation and aseptic re-revision rates compared with CLs. Five-year re-dislocation-free survivorship ranged from 78% to 85% across comparative cohorts. In registry-based analyses, the 10-year cumulative aseptic re-revision rate was 8.6% for DM and 13.1% for CLs. PROMs, assessed using the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), improved similarly in both groups. No included comparative study reported primary cost or cost-utility data. However, external economic models suggest potential cost-effectiveness advantages with DM constructs. These benefits were driven primarily by lower complication rates and fewer re-revisions. In revision THA, DM constructs are consistently associated with lower postoperative instability compared with CLs in comparative observational studies. Evidence regarding reductions in aseptic re-revision is heterogeneous, reflecting competing failure mechanisms and the limitations of non-randomized data. Economic implications remain uncertain due to the absence of primary cost-utility analyses. Implant selection should therefore be individualized, and high-quality prospective comparative studies with standardized outcome reporting are needed to define optimal construct selection in 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.