Why revision of total hip arthroplasty fails: a retrospective consecutive cohort study of 963 patients

Aims The aims of this study are to identify the causes and independent risk factors for failure following revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA). Methods We conducted a retrospective multicentre cohort study involving 963 patients who underwent RTHA between January 2016 and December 2021 across three French university hospitals, with a minimum follow-up of two years. Data collected included demographic details, revision rank (R1= first revision, R 2= second revision, R ≥ 3=third or subsequent revision), surgical variables, complications, reoperations, re-revisions, and mortality. RTHA failure was defined as any reoperation or re-revision. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine independent risk factors for failure. Results The mean patient age was 72 years (14 to 104), with 55% of patients being female. The most common indications for RTHA were aseptic loosening (35.6%), periprosthetic fracture (32.0%), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI; 15.2%), and dislocation (5.7%). Failure occurred in 135 patients (14.0%), most frequently due to PJI (53%), of which 61% were new infections. Among patients revised for dislocation, recurrent instability accounted for 43.7% of failures. Most failures (70%) occurred within one year of revision. Independent risk factors included age ≥ 75 years (odds ratio (OR) 0.61), revision rank ≥ 3 (OR 1.96), PJI (OR 2.0), dislocation (OR 2.86), use of revision (OR 2.38), and constrained acetabular cups (OR 5.38). Conclusion Aseptic loosening remains the leading indication for revision surgery, while PJI is the principal cause of failure following RTHA, both as a new infection and as iterative failure. Recurrent dislocation continues to pose a complex challenge despite modern implant strategies, underscoring the need for meticulous surgical planning in high-risk patients. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2026;7(2):148–157.