10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Authors - did you know SICOT-J has been awarded the DOAJ Seal for "best practice in open access publishing"?

      • Indexed in Scopus
      • 30% discount on article processing charges (APCs) for members of SICOT

      Instructions for authors, online submissions and free e-mail alerts all available here 

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Dual mobility for total hip arthroplasty revision surgery: A systematic review and metanalysis

      review-article
      1 , * , 2 , 3 , 2 , 3
      SICOT-J
      EDP Sciences
      Dual mobility, Revision, Dislocation, Hip prosthesis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction: Revision THA (R-THA) is thought to have a higher complication rate if compared to primary THA. Dual Mobility (DM) implants have been designed aiming for achieving greater stability, with good clinical results. However, scarce material can be found about the real improvements provided by this type of implant compared to traditional implant in Revisions of Total Hip Arthroplasties. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies were performed in December 2019. This was in accordance with the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Our primary outcome measure was overall survivorship and dislocation rate, either treated with a conservative method or requiring surgery. Results: Regarding the overall implant survival, we found a slight significant risk ratio, with a statistically meaningful difference between the two groups in questions in favour of the DM implant. A statistically significant difference in favour of the DM group turned out considering only the Dislocation rate Risk ratio and the aseptic loosening risk as well. No statistical difference was found between the two groups about the risk ratio of infection. Discussion: A steady increase of evidence is demonstrating the efficacy of using a DM cup system in THA revisions with low dislocation rates, but currently there is no study in the literature that demonstrates with statistically significant evidence. The main finding of the present study is that implant’s Survivor and prevention of dislocation at medium follow-up showed better results with a DM if compared to a fixed-bearing cup, for Revision THA.

          Related collections

          Most cited references57

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

            David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument.

              Because of specific methodological difficulties in conducting randomized trials, surgical research remains dependent predominantly on observational or non-randomized studies. Few validated instruments are available to determine the methodological quality of such studies either from the reader's perspective or for the purpose of meta-analysis. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate such an instrument. After an initial conceptualization phase of a methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS), a list of 12 potential items was sent to 100 experts from different surgical specialties for evaluation and was also assessed by 10 clinical methodologists. Subsequent testing involved the assessment of inter-reviewer agreement, test-retest reliability at 2 months, internal consistency reliability and external validity. The final version of MINORS contained 12 items, the first eight being specifically for non-comparative studies. Reliability was established on the basis of good inter-reviewer agreement, high test-retest reliability by the kappa-coefficient and good internal consistency by a high Cronbach's alpha-coefficient. External validity was established in terms of the ability of MINORS to identify excellent trials. MINORS is a valid instrument designed to assess the methodological quality of non-randomized surgical studies, whether comparative or non-comparative. The next step will be to determine its external validity when used in a large number of studies and to compare it with other existing instruments.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                SICOT J
                SICOT J
                sicotj
                SICOT-J
                EDP Sciences
                2426-8887
                2021
                22 March 2021
                : 7
                : ( publisher-idID: sicotj/2021/01 )
                : 18
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Hospital San Raffaele – Orthopaedic Department Milan 20132 Italy
                [2 ] Università Vita e Salute Milan 20132 Italy
                [3 ] Università degli Studi di Perugia Perugia 06123 Italy
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author: placella.giacomo@ 123456hsr.it
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-0404
                Article
                sicotj200009 10.1051/sicotj/2021015
                10.1051/sicotj/2021015
                7984151
                33749588
                09b429c7-8e7b-48e3-8888-094df2fe2c37
                © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2021

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 10 January 2020
                : 27 February 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 54, Pages: 9
                Categories
                Hip
                Review Article

                dual mobility,revision,dislocation,hip prosthesis
                dual mobility, revision, dislocation, hip prosthesis

                Comments

                Comment on this article