Long-term outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years: a systematic review of the contemporary literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasingly performed in younger patients despite the lack of comprehensive assessment of long-term outcomes. We systematically reviewed the contemporary literature to assess the 1) indications, 2) implant selection and long-term survivorship, 3) complication and reoperation rates and 4) radiographic and functional outcomes of primary THA in patients younger than 55 years. Methods: We searched the Embase and MEDLINE databases for English-language articles published between 2000 and 2018 that reported outcomes of primary THA in patients younger than 55 years with a minimum follow-up duration of 10 years. Results: Thirty-two studies reporting on 3219 THA procedures performed in 2434 patients met our inclusion criteria. The most common preoperative diagnoses were avascular necrosis (1044 [32.4%]), osteoarthritis (870 [27.0%]) and developmental dysplasia of the hip (627 [19.5%]). Modular implants (3001 [93.2%]), cementless fixation (2214 [68.8%]) and metal-on-polyethylene bearings (1792 [55.7%]) were frequently used. The mean 5- and 10-year survival rates were 98.7% and 94.6%, respectively. Data on survival beyond 10 years were heterogeneous, with values of 27%–99.5% at 10–14 years, 59%–84% at 15–19 years, 70%–77% at 20–24 years and 60% at 25–30 years. Rates of dislocation, deep infection and reoperation for any reason were 2.4%, 1.2% and 16.3%, respectively. The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 43.6/100 to 91.0/100. Conclusion: Total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years provides reliable outcomes at up to 10 years. Future studies should evaluate the outcomes of THA in this population at 15–20 years’ follow-up.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".