Retrospective review of 143 patients (146 hips) undergoing revision cemented THA for mechanical failure at HSS between 1979–1982, with 2–5 year follow-up. The study analyzes causes of primary failure, complications of revision surgery, and outcomes to determine whether improved technique reduced failure rates compared to the prior institutional series.
When planning revision THA, prioritize restoring the anatomical hip center (cup height and horizontal offset <35 mm from teardrop) — malposition amplifies joint reactive forces and predicts both femoral and acetabular re-loosening.
In patients with poor femoral bone stock, counsel that cemented revision may be a temporizing measure: 74% of failures in this series had poor bone, and young patients with massive bone loss should be considered for structural allograft rather than a straightforward cemented redo.
Retrospective review of 143 patients (146 hips) undergoing revision cemented THA for mechanical failure at HSS between 1979–1982, with 2–5 year follow-up. The study analyzes causes of primary failure, complications of revision surgery, and outcomes to determine whether improved technique reduced failure rates compared to the prior institutional series.
When planning revision THA, prioritize restoring the anatomical hip center (cup height and horizontal offset <35 mm from teardrop) — malposition amplifies joint reactive forces and predicts both femoral and acetabular re-loosening.
In patients with poor femoral bone stock, counsel that cemented revision may be a temporizing measure: 74% of failures in this series had poor bone, and young patients with massive bone loss should be considered for structural allograft rather than a straightforward cemented redo.