Objectives. To quantify and compare peri-acetabular bone mineral density (BMD) between a monoblock acetabular component using a metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing and a modular titanium shell with a polyethylene (PE) insert. The secondary outcome was to measure patient-reported clinical function. Methods. A total of 50 patients (25 per group) were randomised to MoM or metal-on-polyethlene (MoP). There were 27 women (11 MoM) and 23 men (14 MoM) with a mean age of 61.6 years (47.7 to 73.2). Measurements of peri-prosthetic acetabular and contralateral hip (covariate) BMD were performed at baseline and at one and two years’ follow-up. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score, Harris hip score, and RAND-36 were also completed at these intervals. Results. At two years, only zone 1 showed a loss in BMD (-2.5%) in MoM group compared with a gain in the MoP group (+2.2%). Zone 2 showed loss in both groups (-2.2% for MoM; -3.9% for MoP) and zones 3 and 4 a gain in both groups (+0.1% for MoM; +3.3% for MoP). No other between-group differences were detected. When adjusting for BMD of the contralateral hip, no differences in BMD were observed. The only significant differences in functional scores at two years were higher UCLA activity (7.3 (. sd. 1.2) vs 6.1 (. sd. 1.5); p = 0.01) and RAND-36 physical function (82.1 (. sd. 13.0) vs 64.5 (. sd. 26.4); p = 0.02) for MoM bearings versus MoP. One revision was performed in the MoM group, for aseptic acetabular loosening at 11 months. Conclusions. When controlling for systemic BMD, there were no significant differences between MoM and MoP groups in peri-acetabular BMD. However, increasing reports of adverse tissue reactions with large head MoM THR have restricted the use of the monoblock acetabular component to resurfacing only

Aims. Custom triflange acetabular components (CTACs) play an important role in reconstructive orthopaedic surgery, particularly in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and pelvic tumour resection procedures. Accurate CTAC positioning is essential to successful surgical outcomes. While prior studies have explored CTAC positioning in rTHA, research focusing on tumour cases and implant flange positioning precision remains limited. Additionally, the impact of intraoperative navigation on positioning accuracy warrants further investigation. This study assesses CTAC positioning accuracy in tumour resection and rTHA cases, focusing on the differences between preoperative planning and postoperative implant positions. Methods. A multicentre observational cohort study in Australia between February 2017 and March 2021 included consecutive patients undergoing acetabular reconstruction with CTACs in rTHA (Paprosky 3A/3B defects) or tumour resection (including Enneking P2 peri-acetabular area). Of 103 eligible patients (104 hips), 34 patients (35 hips) were analyzed. Results. CTAC positioning was generally accurate, with minor deviations in cup inclination (mean 2.7°; SD 2.84°), anteversion (mean 3.6°; SD 5.04°), and rotation (mean 2.1°; SD 2.47°). Deviation of the hip centre of rotation (COR) showed a mean vector length of 5.9 mm (SD 7.24). Flange positions showed small deviations, with the ischial flange exhibiting the largest deviation (mean vector length of 7.0 mm; SD 8.65). Overall, 83% of the implants were accurately positioned, with 17% exceeding malpositioning thresholds. CTACs used in tumour resections exhibited higher positioning accuracy than rTHA cases, with significant differences in inclination (1.5° for tumour vs 3.4° for rTHA) and rotation (1.3° for tumour vs 2.4° for rTHA). The use of intraoperative navigation appeared to enhance positioning accuracy, but this did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion. This study demonstrates favourable CTAC positioning accuracy, with potential for improved accuracy through intraoperative navigation. Further research is needed to understand the implications of positioning accuracy on implant performance and long-term survival. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):260–268