SynthesisPeerJ2026
Dual mobility total hip arthroplasty
Synthesis in PeerJ, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported with superior outcomes in hip pain, reoperation rate, function, but higher rate of dislocation compared with bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA) for treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures (DFNFs). A dual mobility cup (DMC) has been designed to reduce the rates of dislocation and re-operation. However, whether DMC-THA achieves better clinical outcomes than BHA remains ambiguous. Therefore, we have conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the clinical outcomes of DMC-THA Method: We identified studies in the following electronic databases, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science before December 2025. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were strictly followed. We performed our research using Review Manager 5.4 software. This study was prospectively registered in INPLASY (registration number: INPLASY202040085; DOI: 10.37766/inplasy2020.4.0085). Results: Sixteen studies were eligible for the present meta-analysis, which enrolled 1,296 patients undergoing DMC-THA and 1,208 patients undergoing BHA. Compared with patients undergoing BHA, those undergoing DMC-THA showed significantly lower rates of dislocation ( Conclusions: DMC-THA may be associated with lower rates of dislocation, reoperation, and mortality compared with BHA in the treatment of DFNFs. However, given the predominantly observational nature of the included studies, these findings do not establish a definitive causal relationship. While DMC-THA is associated with a longer operative time, it does not appear to increase the risk of complications such as transfusion, infection, fracture, or thromboembolism. However, the evidence supporting these findings remains limited, and DMC-THA should be considered a potential treatment option rather than a routinely recommended approach for DFNFs. More high-quality studies with large sample sizes, adequate follow-up periods, and standardized outcome reporting are needed to further validate the long-term efficacy and safety of DMC-THA relative to BHA.
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.