ArticleThe Iowa orthopaedic journal2023
Outcomes of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients 60 Years and Younger.
Article in The Iowa orthopaedic journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes of revision from hip resurfacing to total hip arthroplasty: a matched comparative study with primary total hip arthroplasty at seven and a half years follow-up.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Long-Term Outcomes of Functional Cup Positioned Total Hip Arthroplasty in Asian Ankylosing Spondylitis Patients.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2025Article
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: The annual volume of patients requiring revision total hip arthroplasty prior to age 60 is projected to increase considerably. Despite this, outcome data for revision THA in these younger patients remain limited. The purpose of this study was to define implant survivorship, identify risk factors for re-revision, and determine clinical outcomes of revision THA in patients aged ≤60 years. Methods: We identified 191 revision THAs performed in patients aged ≤60 years. Minimum 4-year follow-up was obtained in 141 (73.8%) hips (mean 10.3 years [range, 4-20]). Mean age was 48 years (range, 20-60). Forty-five hips (32%) had previously been revised. Indications for index revision included aseptic loosening (28%), polyethylene wear (26%), dislocation (20%), and infection (14%). Outcome measures were Kaplan-Meier survival free from re-revision and patient-reported outcome scores (mHHS, UCLA). Results: Survivorship free from re-revision for any cause was 78% [95% CI=70-85] at five years and 71% [62-78] at ten years. The most common indication for re-revision at both five and ten years was dislocation (12% [8-19], 16% [10-23]), followed by infection (6% [3-12], 10% [5-18]) and aseptic loosening (2% [1-7], 4% [1-11]). Mean scores were improved from baseline at six (mHHS +21.4, UCLA +0.9) and twelve years (mHHS +13.4, UCLA +0.5). Conclusion: Revision THA in patients less than 60 years of age was associated with considerably lower rates of early loosening-related failure than historically reported. Recurrent dislocation and infection appear to remain challenges in this population. Despite improvements in survivorship from earlier studies, patient-reported functional improvements remained relatively unchanged.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38213848PMC10777697What 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.