Abstract
Eighty-one patients (97 hips) under 50 years of age with arthritis of the hip were treated either by cemented total hip replacement, double cup arthroplasty or osteotomy, and assessed clinically and radiologically. As a primary procedure, hip replacement was superior to both double cup arthroplasty and osteotomy (p < 0.001). Survivorship analysis computed a mean annual risk of failure of 1.1% after total hip replacement, 5.2% after double cup arthroplasty, and 4.9% after osteotomy. The functional quality of hip replacement after double cup arthroplasty or osteotomy was inferior to revised primary hip arthroplasty (p < 0.01).