The increasing number of total hip arthroplasty (THA) used in young patients will inevitably lead to more revision procedures at younger ages, especially since the outcome of primary THA in young patients is already inferior compared to older patients. However, these data are lacking in literature. The aim of this study was to determine the survival of both acetabular and femoral components placed during primary and revision hip arthroplasty in patients under 55 years using Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) data.

All primary THA registered in the LROI between 2007–2018 in patients under 55 years were selected (n=25,682). Subsequent cup- and stem revision procedures were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to estimate the survival probability of primary and revised cup- and stem components.

Mean follow-up of primary cups and stems was 5.8 years (SD 3.2) and 5.9 years (SD 3.2), respectively. In total, 659 cup revision procedures and 532 stem revision procedures were registered. Most common reason for cup revision was acetabular loosening (n=163), most common reason for stem revision was femoral loosening (n=202). Primary cup survival for any reason at 10 years follow-up was 96.1% (95%CI: 95.7–96.4). For primary stems, 10 year survival for any reason was 97.1% (95%CI: 96.7–97.3). Mean follow-up of all revision procedures was 4.1 years (SD 2.9). Out of 659 cup revisions, 113 cup re-revisions were registered. Survival of revised cups, with end-point cup re-revision for any reason was 82.2% (95%CI: 78.8–85.1) at 5 years follow-up. Out of 532 stem revisions, 89 stem re-revisions were registered. For revised stems, survival at 5 year follow-up, with endpoint stem re-revision for any reason was 82.0% (95%CI: 78.2–85.2).

The outcome of revised acetabular and femoral components is worrisome, with a survival of 82% at 5 years follow-up. This information is valuable to provide realistic expectations for these young patients at time of primary THA.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients under 30 years remains a challenge. The long-term survival data are often disappointing. In our institution, we have always used cemented components in all patients under 30 years, combined with acetabular impaction bone grafting (IBG), if necessary.

We reviewed 139 consecutive patients (180 hips) treated between 1986 to 2014. Mean age at time of surgery was 24 (13–30.0) years. Acetabular IBG was applied in 127 (71%) cases. AAOS cavitary defect was seen in 26 (14%) cases, a AAOS segmental defect in 51 (28%) and a combination in 17 (9%).

The mean preoperative HHS improved from 47 (20–81) to 87 (28–100) at review. During follow-up 26 hips have been revised (23 cups and 11 stems). Indications for revision were aseptic loosening (n=15), septic loosening (n=5), recurrent dislocation (n=3), wear (n=1), and stem fracture (n=1).

The 10-year Kaplan-Meier survival of any component with endpoint revision for any reason was 87% (95% CI 79%–92%) and for aseptic loosening 92% (84%–96%). The 15-year survival of any component with revision for any reason as the endpoint was 77% (65%–86%) and for aseptic loosening 84% (71%–92%).

Cemented THA and, if needed with impaction bone grafting, in patients under 30 years provides satisfying long-term results up to 15 years after surgery. Probably this biological approach with IBG may facilitate the inevitable revisions in the future in these young patients because of more bone stock.