The 10-year implant failure rate of index revisions for infection was 45% (CI 37–55) with endpoint re-revision for any reason. 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 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 most common reason for the index revision was dislocation (20%) the most common reason for re-revision was infection (35%). Results - Mean follow-up of revision procedures was 3.9 years (0.1–12). 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. Kaplan–Meier survival analyses were used to calculate failure rates of revised hip arthroplasties with endpoint re-revision for any reason. 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.

We determined the failure rates of revised hip prostheses performed in patients under 55 years using Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) data.

However, data on the outcome of revision hip arthroplasty in young patients are limited. 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.

Hip replacement revisions