Modular dual mobility cups with multihole metal back in total hip arthroplasty revision: a systematic review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dislocation after hip revision is a frequent complication; amongst the strategies to prevent dislocation dual mobility (DM) implants are gaining popularity. We want to evaluate the reliability of non cemented DM cups with multihole metal back and chrome-cobalt liner called Modular Dual Mobility (MDM). We performed a systematic review and selected 5 studies with a total of 285 hips who underwent revision surgery with MDM implants. The mean survivorship rate of the 5 studies was 92.46% (range 90-96%). 267 prosthesis (93.6%) were still implanted at the last follow-up; the mean weighted follow up was 38.7% (range 24-48). We found 13 mechanical complications in 285 hips (4.5%). Five of them were treated conservatively; the other 8 were treated with re-revision. Nine of these complications were dislocation and recurrent instability; 2 of them were associated to metallosis and adverse local tissue reaction. There was 1 patient that had episodes of subluxation; 2 cases of impingement and 1 case of metallosis. Zero intraprosthetic dislocations (IPD) occurred in 285 hips. A 93.6% survivorship is a good result for MDM implants, considering that most of patients had important bone loss and went through multiple revisions. The rate of dislocation is very low compared to the mean rate of dislocation in revision hip surgery. In our review, fretting is a rare complication but it can lead to ALTR and metallosis. For this reason, MDM implants have to be used in selected cases at high risk of dislocation. In conclusion MDM is a great option for decreasing dislocation rate in hip revision, but a longer follow-up and a greater number of cases is needed to assess its reliability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".