ArticleActa orthopaedica2020
Outcome of revision hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years: an analysis of 1,037 revisions in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- The iliac stemmed cup in reconstruction of the acetabular defects secondary to tumor resection: a systematic review of literature.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Article
- High-volume hospitals do not perform better than low-volume hospitals in septic and aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of re-revision risk and mortality based on the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
- Revision Hip Arthroplasty Through a Gluteal-Sparing Extended Posterior Approach May be Able to Achieve Similar Functional Outcomes to Primary Hip Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Article
- Machine Learning Did Not Outperform Conventional Competing Risk Modeling to Predict Revision Arthroplasty.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2024Article
- Detection of Total Hip Replacement Loosening Based on Structure-Borne Sound: Influence of the Position of the Sensor on the Hip Stem.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Outcomes of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients 60 Years and Younger.The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2023Article
- Revision risk of salvage compared with acute total hip arthroplasty following femoral neck fracture: an analysis from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2023Article
- Optimization of Revision Hip Arthroplasty Workflow by Means of Detailed Pre-Surgical Planning Using Computed Tomography Data, Open-Source Software and Three-Dimensional-Printed Models.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Minimum 2-Year Outcomes of a Novel 3D-printed Fully Porous Titanium Acetabular Shell in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2022Article
- Outcome scores after hip surgery in young adults: an editorial approach.International orthopaedics · 2022Article
- How long do revised and multiply revised hip replacements last? A retrospective observational study of the National Joint Registry.The Lancet. Rheumatology · 2022Article
- Uncemented Cups and Impaction Bone Grafting for Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Review of Rationale, Indications, and Outcomes.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Overstretching Expectations May Endanger the Success of the "Millennium Surgery".Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Outcomes of primary total hip arthroplasty using 3D image-based custom stems in unselected patients: a systematic review.EFORT open reviews · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose - The increasing use of hip arthroplasties in young patients will inevitably lead to more revision procedures at younger ages, especially as the outcome of their primary procedures is inferior compared with older patients. However, data on the outcome of revision hip arthroplasty in young patients are limited. We determined the failure rates of revised hip prostheses performed in patients under 55 years using Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) data.Patients and methods - All 1,037 revised hip arthroplasty procedures in patients under 55 years at the moment of revision registered in the LROI during the years 2007-2018 were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to calculate failure rates of revised hip arthroplasties with endpoint re-revision for any reason. Competing risk analyses were used to determine the probability of re-revision for the endpoints infection, dislocation, acetabular and femoral loosening, while other reasons for revisions and death were considered as competing risks.Results - Mean follow-up of revision procedures was 3.9 years (0.1-12). 214 re-revisions were registered. The most common reason for the index revision was dislocation (20%); the most common reason for re-revision was infection (35%). The 5-year failure rate of revised hip prostheses was 22% (95% CI 19-25), and the 10-year failure rate was 28% (CI 24-33). The 10-year cumulative failure rates of index revisions with endpoint re-revision for infection was 7.8% (CI 6.1-9.7), acetabular loosening 7.0% (CI 4.1-11), dislocation 3.8% (CI 2.6-5.2), and femoral loosening 2.7% (CI 1.6-4.1). The 10-year implant failure rate of index revisions for infection was 45% (CI 37-55) with endpoint re-revision for any reason.Interpretation - Failure rate of revised hip prostheses in patients under 55 years is worrisome, especially regarding index revisions due to infection. This information facilitates realistic expectations for these young patients at the time of primary 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.