The best treatment method of large acetabular bone defects at revision THR remains controversial. Some of the factors that need consideration are the amount of residual pelvic bone removed during revision; the contact area between the residual pelvic bone and the new implant; and the influence of the new acetabular construct on the centre of rotation of the hip. The purpose of this study was to compare these variables in two of the most used surgical techniques used to reconstruct severe acetabular defects: the trabecular metal acetabular revision system (TMARS) and a custom triflanged acetabular component (CTAC).

Pre- and post-operative CT-scans were acquired from 11 patients who underwent revision THR with a TMARS construct for a Paprosky IIIB defect, 10 with pelvic discontinuity, at Royal Adelaide Hospital. The CT scans were used to generate computer models to virtually compare the TMARS and CTAC constructs using a semi-automated method. The TMARS construct model was calculated using postoperative CT scans while the CTAC constructs using the preoperative CT scans. The bone contact, centre of rotation, inclination, anteversion and reamed bone differences were calculated for both models.

There was a significant difference in the mean amount of bone reamed for the TMARS reconstructions (15,997 mm³) compared to the CTAC reconstructions (2292 mm³, p>0.01). There was no significant difference between overall implant bone contact (TMARS 5760mm² vs CTAC 5447mm², p=0.63). However, there was a significant difference for both cancellous (TMARS 4966mm² vs CTAC 2887mm², p=0.008) and cortical bone contact (TMARS 795mm² vs CTAC 2560mm², p=0.001). There was no difference in inclination and anteversion achieved. TMARS constructs resulted on average in a centre of rotations 7.4mm more lateral and 4.0mm more posterior.

Modelling of two different reconstructions of Paprosky IIIB defects demonstrated potential important differences between all variables investigated.

Femoral impaction bone grafting (IBG) may be used to restore bone stock in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and allow use of a shorter, than otherwise, length prosthesis. This is most beneficial in young patients who are more likely to require further revision surgery. This study aimed to assess the results of femoral IBG for staged revision THA for infection. A prospective cohort of 29 patients who underwent staged revision THA for infection with femoral IBG and a cemented polished double-tapered (CPDT) stem at the final reconstruction was investigated.

The minimum follow-up was two years (2 – 10 years, median 6 years). Stem subsidence was measured with radiostereometric analysis. Clinical outcomes were assessed with the Harris Hip, Harris Pain, and and Société Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de Traumatologie Activity (SICOT) Scores. The original infection was eradicated in 28 patients. One patient required a repeat staged revision due to re-infection with the same organism. At two-year follow-up, the median subsidence at the stem-bone interface was −1.70 mm (−0.31 to −4.98mm). The median Harris Hip Score improved from 51 pre-operatively to 80 at two years (p=0.000), the Harris Pain Score from 20 to 44 (p=0.000) and the SICOT Score from 2.5 to 3 (p=0.003).

As successful eradication of infection was achieved in the majority of patients and the stem migration was similar to that of a primary CPDT stem, this study supports the use of femoral IBG during the final reconstruction of the femur after staged revision THA for infection.