The outcome of subsequent revisions after primary total hip arthroplasty in 1,049 patients aged under 50 years : a single-centre cohort study with a follow-up of more than 30 years.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of all primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and their subsequent revision procedures in patients aged under 50 years performed at our institution. METHODS: All 1,049 primary THAs which were undertaken in 860 patients aged under 50 years between 1988 and 2018 in our tertiary care institution were included. We used cemented implants in both primary and revision surgery. Impaction bone grafting was used in patients with acetabular or femoral bone defects. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to determine the survival of primary and revision THA with the endpoint of revision for any reason, and of revision for aseptic loosening. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients at the time of the initial THA was 38.6 years (SD 9.3). The mean follow-up of the THA was 8.7 years (2.0 to 31.5). The rate of survival for all primary THAs, acetabular components only, and femoral components only at 20 years' follow-up with the endpoint of revision for any reason, was 66.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 60.5 to 72.2), 69.1% (95% CI 63.0 to 74.4), and 83.2% (95% CI 78.1 to 87.3), respectively. A total of 138 revisions were performed. The mean age at the time of revision was 48.2 years (23 to 72). Survival of all subsequent revision procedures, revised acetabular, and revised femoral components at 15 years' follow-up with the endpoint of revision for any reason was 70.3% (95% CI 56.1 to 80.7), 69.7% (95% CI 54.3 to 80.7), and 76.2% (95% CI 57.8 to 87.4), respectively. A Girdlestone excision arthroplasty was required in six of 860 patients (0.7%). CONCLUSION: The long-term outcome of cemented primary and subsequent revision THA is promising in these young patients. We showed that our philosophy of using impaction bone grafting in patients with acetabular and femoral defects is a very suitable option when treating young patients. Surgeons should realize that knowledge of the outcome of subsequent revision surgery, which is inevitable in young patients, must be communicated to this group of patients prior to their initial THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):368-375.

Systematic review: lack of evidence for the success of revision arthroplasty outcome in younger patients.

INTRODUCTION: Total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in younger patients are becoming increasingly popular. However, the outcome of subsequent revisions in younger patients is not well known and, therefore, their success (subsequent revision prosthesis survival) might be overestimated. We investigated available data on the outcome of primary- and subsequent revision THAs performed in the same cohort of patients who underwent primary THA under the age of 50. METHODS: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) were searched up until April 13, 2016 for studies that reported both the survival of primary and subsequent revisions THA of single cohorts of patients younger than 50. Eligible articles had to include Kaplan Meier analysis or competing risk analysis for survival of the primary THA at a mean follow-up of 10 years, as well as for the subsequent revision THA within the same cohort. RESULTS: We found 4,799 unique records; 43 of which were potentially eligible. Only 1 paper met our inclusion criteria. It reported on the survival of 69 primary prostheses at a mean of more than 10 years follow-up and 13 subsequent revisions. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear lack of evidence about the outcomes of the revision arthroplasty in younger patients. Only 1 study reported the survival-rate of subsequent revision arthroplasty with the minimum 10-year survival rate of the original THA cohort. In the future, this serious lack of knowledge could result in a large number of patients with no further reconstructive options after failed THA, and a large medical burden for society.

Acetabular Reconstructions with Impaction Bone-Grafting and a Cemented Cup in Patients Younger Than 50 Years of Age: A Concise Follow-up, at 27 to 35 Years, of a Previous Report.

We present an update of 19 acetabular reconstructions, performed with a cemented total hip arthroplasty and impaction bone-grafting, in situ at the time of our previous report. At a mean follow-up of 30 years (range, 27 to 35 years), no additional patients were lost to follow-up. Two patients (3 reconstructions) died for reasons unrelated to the hip surgery. Five reconstructions (5 patients) were revised, 4 for aseptic loosening and 1 for septic loosening, after a mean of 24 years (range, 22 to 27 years), leaving 11 surviving hips (11 patients) that were clinically and radiographically evaluated. Kaplan-Meier survival at 30 years was 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.56) for revision for any reason, 0.56 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.73) for aseptic loosening, and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.69) for radiographic loosening. Competing risk analysis showed that Kaplan-Meier analysis overestimates the revision risk by 18% for revision for any reason and 22% for aseptic loosening. Cemented impaction bone-grafting is a reasonable long-term solution for demanding primary and revision acetabular reconstructions in young patients with acetabular bone defects. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Long-term results of cemented total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 30 years and the outcome of subsequent revisions.

BACKGROUND: The number of total hip arthroplasties in patients under 30 years is increasing over the years. Almost all of them will face at least one or more future revisions in their life. Therefore, the implant used should have a high survival rate, and needs to be easily revisable resulting in a low re-revision rate. Several studies have evaluated the outcome of total hip arthroplasties in patients under 30 years. However, only a few reported on the follow-up outcome of 10 years or more. In addition, none of these reports published data of the subsequent revisions of these implants within their original report. METHODS: We studied historically prospective collected data of 48 consecutive patients (69 hips) younger than 30 years, treated with a cemented primary total hip prosthesis between 1988 and 2004. Since the last evaluation of this cohort, two patients were lost to follow-up. For all hip revisions in this cohort, again cemented implants were used, mostly in combination with bone impaction grafting. Kaplan-Meier survival curves at 10- and 15 years for the primary total hip arthroplasties and revisions were determined. RESULTS: The mean age at time of primary surgery was 25 years (range, 16 to 29 years). Mean follow-up of the primary hips was 11.5 years (range, 7 to 23 years). During follow-up 13 revisions were performed; in 3 cases a two-stage total revision was performed for septic loosening and 9 cups were revised for aseptic loosening. There were no aseptic stem revisions. The 10 and 15-year survival rates with endpoint revision for aseptic loosening of the primary total hip were 90% (95% CI: 79 to 96) and 82% (95% CI: 65 to 92) respectively. None of our 13 subsequent revisions needed a re-revision within 10 years after re-implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Cemented total hip implants in patients under 30 years have an encouraging outcome at 10 and 15 years after surgery in these young patients. The 13 revised hips, treated with bone grafting and the third generation cement technique, were performing well with no re-revisions within ten years after surgery.

[Hip resurfacing in patients under 55 years of age]. / De resurfacing heupprothese bij patiënten jonger dan 55 jaar.

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty was introduced as an alternative to the conventional total hip arthroplasty which had shown suboptimal results in younger patients. Application of the resurfacing technique in younger patients has increased over the last few years. To date, no randomized controlled trials with a minimum follow-up span of 10 years comparing hip resurfacing to conventional hip replacement have been conducted in patients under 55 years of age. Australian and English hip registries demonstrate high revision rates after 5 years for some brands of resurfacing implants. In addition to these disappointing revision rates, the complication of aseptic lymphocytic vasculitis caused by metal particles evoking a local tissue reaction has been increasingly reported. The resurfacing procedure recently received some negative media attention in the Netherlands, leading to confusion among patients. In order to ease patient doubts, it is important to correctly inform them as to the type of implant used, for example, by means of the website or an information card.