header advert
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Get Access locked padlock


Bone support of a custom triflange acetabular component over time

Download PDF



To investigate the extent of bone development around the scaffold of custom triflange acetabular components (CTACs) over time.


We performed a single-centre historical prospective cohort study, including all patients with revision THA using the aMace CTAC between January 2017 and March 2021. A total of 18 patients (18 CTACs) were included. Models of the hemipelvis and the scaffold component of the CTACs were created by segmentation of CT scans. The CT scans were performed immediately postoperatively and at least one year after surgery. The amount of bone in contact with the scaffold was analyzed at both times, and the difference was calculated.


The mean time between the implantation and the second CT scan was two years (1 to 5). The mean age of the patients during CTAC implantation was 75 years (60 to 92). The mean scaffold-bone contact area increased from 16% (SD 12.6) to 28% (SD 11.9). The mean scaffold-bone distance decreased from a mean of 6.5 mm (SD 2.0) to 5.5 mm (SD 1.6). None of the CTACs were revised or radiologically loose.


There was a statistically significant increase of scaffold-bone contact area over time, but the total contact area of the scaffold in relation to the acetabular bone remained relatively low. As all implants remained well fixed, the question remains to what extend the scaffold contributes to the observed stability, in relation to the screws. A future design implication might be an elimination of the bulky scaffold component. This design modification would reduce production costs and may optimize the primary fit of the implant.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):359–364.

Correspondence should be sent to Erim Özdemir. E-mail:

For access options please click here