Objective. This study compared the primary stability of two commercially available acetabular components from the same manufacturer, which differ only in geometry; a hemispherical and a peripherally enhanced design (peripheral self-locking (PSL)). The objective was to determine whether altered geometry resulted in better primary stability. Methods. Acetabular components were seated with 0.8 mm to 2 mm interference fits in reamed polyethylene bone substrate of two different densities (0.22 g/cm. 3. and 0.45 g/cm. 3. ). The primary stability of each component design was investigated by measuring the peak failure load during uniaxial pull-out and tangential lever-out tests. Results. There was no statistically significant difference in seating force (p = 0.104) or primary stability (pull-out p = 0.171, lever-out p = 0.087) of the two components in the low-density substrate. Similarly, in the high-density substrate, there was no statistically significant difference in the peak pull-out force (p = 0.154) or lever-out moment (p = 0.574) between the designs. However, the PSL component required a significantly higher seating force than the hemispherical cup in the high-density bone analogue (p = 0.006). Conclusions. Higher seating forces associated with the PSL design may result in inadequate seating and increased risk of component malpositioning or acetabular fracture in the intra-operative setting in high-density bone stock. Our results, if translated clinically, suggest that a purely hemispherical geometry may have an advantage over a peripherally enhanced geometry in high density bone stock. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:264–9

Objectives. In order to address acetabular defects, porous metal revision acetabular components and augments have been developed, which require fixation to each other. The fixation technique that results in the smallest relative movement between the components, as well as its influence on the primary stability with the host bone, have not previously been determined. Methods. A total of 18 composite hemipelvises with a Paprosky IIB defect were implanted using a porous titanium 56 mm multihole acetabular component and 1 cm augment. Each acetabular component and augment was affixed to the bone using two screws, while the method of fixation between the acetabular component and augment varied for the three groups of six hemipelvises: group S, screw fixation only; group SC, screw plus cement fixation; group C, cement fixation only. The implanted hemipelvises were cyclically loaded to three different loading maxima (0.5 kN, 0.9 kN, and 1.8 kN). Results. Screw fixation alone resulted in up to three times more movement (p = 0.006), especially when load was increased to 100% (p < 0.001), than with the other two fixation methods (C and SC). No significant difference was noted when a screw was added to the cement fixation. Increased load resulted in increased relative movement between the interfaces in all fixation methods (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Cement fixation between a porous titanium acetabular component and augment is associated with less relative movement than screw fixation alone for all implant interfaces, particularly with increasing loads. Adding a screw to the cement fixation did not offer any significant advantage. These results also show that the stability of the tested acetabular component/augment interface affects the stability of the construct that is affixed to the bone. Cite this article: N. A. Beckmann, R. G. Bitsch, M. Gondan, M. Schonhoff, S. Jaeger. Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:282–288. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.74.BJR-2017-0198.R1

Aims. Periprosthetic fracture and implant loosening are two of the major reasons for revision surgery of cementless implants. Optimal implant fixation with minimal bone damage is challenging in this procedure. This pilot study investigates whether vibratory implant insertion is gentler compared to consecutive single blows for acetabular component implantation in a surrogate polyurethane (PU) model. Methods. Acetabular components (cups) were implanted into 1 mm nominal under-sized cavities in PU foams (15 and 30 per cubic foot (PCF)) using a vibratory implant insertion device and an automated impaction device for single blows. The impaction force, remaining polar gap, and lever-out moment were measured and compared between the impaction methods. Results. Impaction force was reduced by 89% and 53% for vibratory insertion in 15 and 30 PCF foams, respectively. Both methods positioned the component with polar gaps under 2 mm in 15 PCF foam. However, in 30 PCF foam, the vibratory insertion resulted in a clinically undesirable polar gap of over 2 mm. A higher lever-out moment was achieved with the consecutive single blow insertion by 42% in 15 PCF and 2.7 times higher in 30 PCF foam. Conclusion. Vibratory implant insertion may lower periprosthetic fracture risk by reducing impaction forces, particularly in low-quality bone. Achieving implant seating using vibratory insertion requires adjustment of the nominal press-fit, especially in denser bone. Further preclinical testing on real bone tissue is necessary to assess whether its viscoelasticity in combination with an adjusted press-fit can compensate for the reduced primary stability after vibratory insertion observed in this study. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(6):272–278

Aims

Custom-made partial pelvis replacements (PPRs) are increasingly used in the reconstruction of large acetabular defects and have mainly been designed using a triflange approach, requiring extensive soft-tissue dissection. The monoflange design, where primary intramedullary fixation within the ilium combined with a monoflange for rotational stability, was anticipated to overcome this obstacle. The aim of this study was to evaluate the design with regard to functional outcome, complications, and acetabular reconstruction.

Aims

Manual impaction, with a mallet and introducer, remains the standard method of installing cementless acetabular cups during total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study aims to quantify the accuracy and precision of manual impaction strikes during the seating of an acetabular component. This understanding aims to help improve impaction surgical techniques and inform the development of future technologies.

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and radiological results of patients who were revised using a custom-made triflange acetabular component (CTAC) for component loosening and pelvic discontinuity (PD) after previous total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims

Limited implant survival due to aseptic cup loosening is most commonly responsible for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Advances in implant designs and materials have been crucial in addressing those challenges. Vitamin E-infused highly cross-linked polyethylene (VEPE) promises strong wear resistance, high oxidative stability, and superior mechanical strength. Although VEPE monoblock cups have shown good mid-term performance and excellent wear patterns, long-term results remain unclear. This study evaluated migration and wear patterns and clinical and radiological outcomes at a minimum of ten years’ follow-up.

Aims

Femoral bone preparation using compaction technique has been shown to preserve bone and improve implant fixation in animal models. No long-term clinical outcomes are available. There are no significant long-term differences between compaction and broaching techniques for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in terms of migration, clinical, and radiological outcomes.

Aims

The main advantage of 3D-printed, off-the-shelf acetabular implants is the potential to promote enhanced bony fixation due to their controllable porous structure. In this study we investigated the extent of osseointegration in retrieved 3D-printed acetabular implants.

Aims

Fixation of osteoporotic proximal humerus fractures remains challenging even with state-of-the-art locking plates. Despite the demonstrated biomechanical benefit of screw tip augmentation with bone cement, the clinical findings have remained unclear, potentially as the optimal augmentation combinations are unknown. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the biomechanical benefits of the augmentation options in a humeral locking plate using finite element analysis (FEA).

Aims

To compare the in vivo long-term fixation achieved by two acetabular components with different porous ingrowth surfaces using radiostereometric analysis (RSA).

Aims

The diversity of femoral morphology renders femoral component sizing in total hip arthroplasty (THA) challenging. We aimed to determine whether femoral morphology and femoral component filling influence early clinical and radiological outcomes following THA using fully hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated femoral components.

In this in vitro study of the hip joint we examined which soft tissues act as primary and secondary passive rotational restraints when the hip joint is functionally loaded. A total of nine cadaveric left hips were mounted in a testing rig that allowed the application of forces, torques and rotations in all six degrees of freedom. The hip was rotated throughout a complete range of movement (ROM) and the contributions of the iliofemoral (medial and lateral arms), pubofemoral and ischiofemoral ligaments and the ligamentum teres to rotational restraint was determined by resecting a ligament and measuring the reduced torque required to achieve the same angular position as before resection. The contribution from the acetabular labrum was also measured. Each of the capsular ligaments acted as the primary hip rotation restraint somewhere within the complete ROM, and the ligamentum teres acted as a secondary restraint in high flexion, adduction and external rotation. The iliofemoral lateral arm and the ischiofemoral ligaments were primary restraints in two-thirds of the positions tested. Appreciation of the importance of these structures in preventing excessive hip rotation and subsequent impingement/instability may be relevant for surgeons undertaking both hip joint preserving surgery and hip arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:484–91.