Aims. Isolated acetabular liner exchange with a highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) component is an option to address polyethylene wear and osteolysis following total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the presence of a well-fixed acetabular shell. The liner can be fixed either with the original locking mechanism or by being cemented within the acetabular component. Whether the method used for fixation of the HXLPE liner has any bearing on the long-term outcomes is still unclear. Methods. Data were retrieved for all patients who underwent isolated acetabular component liner exchange surgery with a HXLPE component in our institute between August 2000 and January 2015. Patients were classified according to the fixation method used (original locking mechanism (n = 36) or cemented (n = 50)). Survival and revision rates were compared. A total of 86 revisions were performed and the mean duration of follow-up was 13 years. Results. A total of 20 patients (23.3%) had complications, with dislocation alone being the most common (8.1%; 7/86). Ten patients (11.6%) required re-revision surgery. Cementing the HXLPE liner (8.0%; 4/50) had a higher incidence of re-revision due to acetabular component liner-related complications than using the original locking mechanism (0%; 0/36; p = 0.082). Fixation using the original locking mechanism was associated with re-revision due to acetabular component loosening (8.3%; 3/36), compared to cementing (0%; 0/50; p = 0.038). Overall estimated mean survival was 19.2 years. There was no significant difference in the re-revision rate between the original locking mechanism (11.1%; 4/36) and cementing (12.0%; 6/50; p = 0.899). Using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the revision-free survival of HXLPE fixed with the original locking mechanism and cementing was 94.1% and 93.2%, respectively, at ten years, and 84.7% and 81.3%, respectively, at 20 years (p = 0.840). Conclusion. The re-revision rate and the revision-free survival following acetabular component liner exchange revision surgery using the HXLPE liner were not influenced by the fixation technique used. Both techniques were associated with good survival at a mean follow-up of 13 years. Careful patient selection is necessary for isolated acetabular component liner exchange revision surgery in order to achieve the best outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):59–65

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 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

Background. The current orthopaedic literature demonstrates a clear relationship between acetabular component positioning, polyethylene wear and risk of dislocation following Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). Problems with edge loading, stripe wear and squeaking are also associated with higher acetabular inclination angles, particularly in hard-on-hard bearing implants. The important parameters of acetabular component positioning are depth, height, version and inclination. Acetabular component depth, height and version can be controlled with intra-operative reference to the transverse acetabular ligament. Control of acetabular component inclination, particularly in the lateral decubitus position, is more difficult and remains a challenge for the Orthopaedic Surgeon. Lewinnek et al described a ‘safe zone’ of acetabular component orientation: Radiological acetabular inclination of 40 ± 10° and radiological anteversion of 15 ± 10°. Accurate implantation of the acetabular component within the ‘safe zone’ of radiological inclination is dependent on operative inclination, operative version and pelvic position. Traditionally during surgery, the acetabular component has been inserted with an operative inclination of 45°. This assumes that patient positioning is correct and does not take into account the impact of operative anteversion or patient malpositioning. However, precise patient positioning in order to orientate acetabular components using this method cannot always be relied upon. Hill et al demonstrated a mean 6.9° difference between photographically simulated radiological inclination and the post-operative radiological inclination. The most likely explanation was felt to be adduction of the uppermost hemipelvis in the lateral decubitus position. The study changed the practice of the senior author, with target operative inclination now 35° rather than 40° as before, aiming to achieve a post-operative radiological inclination of 42° ± 5°. Aim. To determine which of the following three techniques of acetabular component implantation most accurately obtains a desired operative inclination of 35 degrees:. Freehand. Modified (35°) Mechanical Alignment Guide, or. Digital inclinometer assisted. Methods. 270 patients undergoing primary uncemented THA were randomised to one of the three methods of acetabular component implantation. Target operative inclination for all three techniques was 35°. Operative inclination was measured intra-operatively using both a digital inclinometer and stereophotogrammetric system. For both the freehand and Mechanical Alignment Guide implantation techniques, the surgeon was blinded to intra-operative digital inclinometer readings. Results. The freehand implantation technique had an operative inclination range of 25.2 – 43.2° (Mean 32.9°, SD 2.90°). The modified (35°) Mechanical Alignment Guide implantation technique had an operative inclination range of 29.3 – 39.3° (Mean 33.7°, SD 1.89°). The digital inclinometer assisted technique had an operative inclination range of 27.5 – 37.5° (Mean 34.0°, SD 1.57°). Mean unsigned deviation from target 35° operative inclination was 2.92° (SD 2.03) for the freehand implantation technique, 1.83° (SD 1.41) for the modified (35°) Mechanical Alignment Guide implantation technique and 1.28° (SD 1.33) for the digital inclinometer assisted technique. Conclusions. When aiming for 35° of operative inclination, the digital inclinometer technique appears more accurate than either the freehand or Mechanical Alignment Guide techniques. In order to improve accuracy of acetabular component orientation during Total Hip Arthroplasty, the surgeon should consider using such a technique

Aims. In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasties and resurfacings, mechanically induced corrosion can lead to elevated serum metal ions, a local inflammatory response, and formation of pseudotumours, ultimately requiring revision. The size and diametral clearance of anatomical (ADM) and modular (MDM) dual-mobility polyethylene bearings match those of Birmingham hip MoM components. If the acetabular component is satisfactorily positioned, well integrated into the bone, and has no surface damage, this presents the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM polyethylene bearings without removal of the acetabular component. Methods. Between 2012 and 2020, across two centres, 94 patients underwent revision of Birmingham MoM hip arthroplasties or resurfacings. Mean age was 65.5 years (33 to 87). In 53 patients (56.4%), the acetabular component was retained and dual-mobility bearings were used (DM); in 41 (43.6%) the acetabulum was revised (AR). Patients underwent follow-up of minimum two-years (mean 4.6 (2.1 to 8.5) years). Results. In the DM group, two (3.8%) patients underwent further surgery: one (1.9%) for dislocation and one (1.9%) for infection. In the AR group, four (9.8%) underwent further procedures: two (4.9%) for loosening of the acetabular component and two (4.9%) following dislocations. There were no other dislocations in either group. In the DM group, operating time (68.4 vs 101.5 mins, p < 0.001), postoperative drop in haemoglobin (16.6 vs 27.8 g/L, p < 0.001), and length of stay (1.8 vs 2.4 days, p < 0.001) were significantly lower. There was a significant reduction in serum metal ions postoperatively in both groups (p < 0.001), although there was no difference between groups for this reduction (p = 0.674 (cobalt); p = 0.186 (chromium)). Conclusion. In selected patients with Birmingham MoM hips, where the acetabular component is well-fixed and in a satisfactory position with no surface damage, the metal head can be exchanged for polyethylene ADM/MDM bearings with retention of the acetabular prosthesis. This presents significant benefits, with a shorter procedure and a lower risk of complications. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(6):514–523

In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements or resurfacings, mechanical induced corrosion can lead to a local inflammatory response, pseudo tumours and elevated serum metal ions, requiring revision surgery. The size and diametral clearance of Anatomic (ADM) and Modular (MDM) Dual Mobility bearings matches that of certain MOM components. Presenting the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM bearings without removal of the acetabular component if it is well-fixed and appropriately positioned. Between 2012 and 2020, across two centres, 94 patients underwent revision of a MoM hip replacement or resurfacing. The mean age was 65.5 (33–87) years. In 53 patients (56.4%), the acetabular component was retained, and dual mobility bearings were used (DM); in 41 (43.6%) the acetabulum was revised (AR). DM was only considered where the acetabular component was satisfactorily positioned and well-integrated into bone, with no surface damage. Patients underwent clinical and radiographic follow-up to at least one-year (mean 42.4 (12–96) months). One (1.1%) patient died before one-year, for reasons unrelated to the surgery. In the DM group, two (3.8%) patients underwent further surgery; one (1.9%) for dislocation and one (1.9%) for infection. In the AR group, four (12.2%) underwent further procedures; two (4.9%) for loosening of the acetabular component and two (4.9%) following dislocations. There were no other dislocations in either group. In the DM group, operative time (68.4 v 101.5 mins, p<0.001), postoperative drop in haemoglobin (16.6 v 27.8 g/L, p<0.001), and length of stay (1.8 v 2.4 days, p<0.001) were significantly lower. There was a significant reduction in serum metal ions postoperatively in both groups (p<0.001 both Cobalt and Chromium) although there was no difference between groups for this reduction (p=0.674 Cobalt; p=0.186 Chromium). In selected patients with MoM hip arthroplasty, where the acetabular component is well-fixed, in a satisfactory position and there is no surface damage, the metal head can be exchanged for ADM/MDM bearings with retention of the acetabular prosthesis. Presenting significant benefits through a less invasive procedure, and a low risk of complications, including dislocation

Aims. Various surgical techniques have been described for total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with Crowe type III dislocated hips, who have a large acetabular bone defect. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical results of patients in whom anatomical reconstruction of the acetabulum was performed using a cemented acetabular component and autologous bone graft from the femoral neck. Methods. A total of 22 patients with Crowe type III dislocated hips underwent 28 THAs using bone graft from the femoral neck between 1979 and 2000. A Charnley cemented acetabular component was placed at the level of the true acetabulum after preparation with bone grafting. All patients were female with a mean age at the time of surgery of 54 years (35 to 68). A total of 18 patients (21 THAs) were followed for a mean of 27.2 years (20 to 33) after the operation. Results. Radiographs immediately after surgery showed a mean vertical distance from the centre of the hip to the teardrop line of 21.5 mm (SD 3.3; 14.5 to 30.7) and a mean cover of the acetabular component by bone graft of 46% (SD 6%; 32% to 60%). All bone grafts united without collapse, and only three acetabular components loosened. The rate of survival of the acetabular component with mechanical loosening or revision as the endpoint was 86.4% at 25 years after surgery. Conclusion. The technique of using autologous bone graft from the femoral neck and placing a cemented acetabular component in the true acetabulum can provide good long-term outcomes in patients with Crowe type III dislocated hips. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):299–304

Aims. Appropriate acetabular component placement has been proposed for prevention of postoperative dislocation in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Manual placements often cause outliers in spite of attempts to insert the component within the intended safe zone; therefore, some surgeons routinely evaluate intraoperative pelvic radiographs to exclude excessive acetabular component malposition. However, their evaluation is often ambiguous in case of the tilted or rotated pelvic position. The purpose of this study was to develop the computational analysis to digitalize the acetabular component orientation regardless of the pelvic tilt or rotation. Methods. Intraoperative pelvic radiographs of 50 patients who underwent THA were collected retrospectively. The 3D pelvic bone model and the acetabular component were image-matched to the intraoperative pelvic radiograph. The radiological anteversion (RA) and radiological inclination (RI) of the acetabular component were calculated and those measurement errors from the postoperative CT data were compared relative to those of the 2D measurements. In addition, the intra- and interobserver differences of the image-matching analysis were evaluated. Results. Mean measurement errors of the image-matching analyses were significantly small (2.5° (SD 1.4°) and 0.1° (SD 0.9°) in the RA and RI, respectively) relative to those of the 2D measurements. Intra- and interobserver differences were similarly small from the clinical perspective. Conclusion. We have developed a computational analysis of acetabular component orientation using an image-matching technique with small measurement errors compared to visual evaluations regardless of the pelvic tilt or rotation. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(7):360–367

Abstract. Optimal acetabular component position in Total Hip Arthroplasty is vital for avoiding complications such as dislocation and impingement, Transverse acetabular ligament (TAL) have been shown to be a reliable landmark to guide optimum acetabular cup position. Reports of iliopsoas impingement caused by acetabular components exist. The Psoas fossa (PF) is not a well-regarded landmark for Component positioning. Our aim was to assess the relationship of the TAL and PF in relation to Acetabular Component positioning. A total of 22 cadavers were implanted on 4 occasions with the an uncemented acetabular component. Measurements were taken between the inner edge of TAL and the base of the acetabular component and the distance between the lower end of the PF and the most medial end of TAL. The distance between the edge of the acetabular component and TAL was a mean of 1.6cm (range 1.4–18cm). The distance between the medial end of TAL and the lowest part of PF was a mean of 1.cm (range 1,3–1.8cm) It was evident that the edge of PF was not aligned with TAL. Optimal acetabular component position is vital to the longevity and outcome following THA. TAL provides a landmark to guide acetabular component position. However we feel the PF is a better landmark to allow appropriate positioning of the acetabular component inside edge of the acetabulum inside the bone without exposure of the component rim and thus preventing iliopsoas impingement at the psoas notch and resultant groin pain

Introduction. Re-revision due to instability and dislocation can occur in up to 1 in 4 cases following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Optimal placement of components during revision surgery is thus critical in avoiding re-revision. Computer-assisted navigation has been shown to improve the accuracy and precision of component placement in primary THA; however, its role in revision surgery is less well documented. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the effect of computer-assisted navigation on component placement in revision total hip arthroplasty, as compared with conventional surgery. Methods. To examine the effect of navigation on acetabular component placement in revision THA, we retrospectively reviewed data from a multi-centre cohort of 128 patients having undergone revision THA between March 2017 and January 2019. An imageless computer navigation device (Intellijoint HIP®, Intellijoint Surgical, Kitchener, ON, Canada) was utilized in 69 surgeries and conventional methods were used in 59 surgeries. Acetabular component placement (anteversion, inclination) and the proportion of acetabular components placed in a functional safe zone (40° inclination/20° anteversion) were compared between navigation assisted and conventional THA groups. Results. Mean inclination decreased post-operatively versus baseline in both the navigation (44.9°±12.1° vs. 43.0°±6.8°, p=0.65) and control (45.8°±19.4° vs. 42.8°±7.1°, p=0.08) groups. Mean anteversion increased in both study groups, with a significant increase noted in the navigation group (18.6°±8.5° vs. 21.6°±7.8°, p=0.04) but not in the control group (19.4°±9.6° vs. 21.2°±9.8°, p=0.33). Post-operatively, a greater proportion of acetabular components were within ±10° of a functional target (40° inclination, 20° anteversion) in the navigation group (inclination: 59/67 (88%), anteversion: 56/67 (84%)) than in the control group (49/59 (83%) and 41/59, (69%), respectively). Acetabular component precision in both study groups improved post-operatively versus baseline. Variance in inclination improved significantly in both control (50.6° vs. 112.4°, p=0.002) and navigation (46.2° vs. 141.1°, p<0.001) groups. Anteversion variance worsened in the control group (96.3° vs. 87.6°, p=0.36) but the navigation group showed improvement (61.2° vs. 72.7°, p=0.25). Post-operative variance amongst cup orientations in the navigation group (IN: 46.2°; AV: 61.2°) indicated significantly better precision than that observed in the control group (IN: 50.6°, p=0.36; AV: 96.3°, p=0.04). Discussion. Re-revision is required in up to 25% of revision THA cases, of which 36% are caused by instability. This places a significant burden on the health care system and highlights the importance of accurate component placement. Our data indicate that the use of imageless navigation in revision THA – by minimizing the likelihood of outliers – may contribute to lower rates of re-revision by improving component orientation in revision THA. Conclusion. Utilizing imageless navigation in revision THAs results in more consistent placement of the acetabular component as compared to non-navigated revision surgeries

Aims. The main aims were to identify risk factors predictive of a radiolucent line (RLL) around the acetabular component with an interface bioactive bone cement (IBBC) technique in the first year after THA, and evaluate whether these risk factors influence the development of RLLs at five and ten years after THA. Methods. A retrospective review was undertaken of 980 primary cemented THAs in 876 patients using cemented acetabular components with the IBBC technique. The outcome variable was any RLLs that could be observed around the acetabular component at the first year after THA. Univariate analyses with univariate logistic regression and multivariate analyses with exact logistic regression were performed to identify risk factors for any RLLs based on radiological classification of hip osteoarthritis. Results. RLLs were detected in 27.2% of patients one year postoperatively. In multivariate regression analysis controlling for confounders, atrophic osteoarthritis (odds ratio (OR) 2.17 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04 to 4.49); p = 0.038) and 26 mm (OR 3.23 (95% CI 1.85 to 5.66); p < 0.001) or 28 mm head diameter (OR 3.64 (95% CI 2.07 to 6.41); p < 0.001) had a significantly greater risk for any RLLs one year after surgery. Structural bone graft (OR 0.19 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.29) p < 0.001) and location of the hip centre within the true acetabular region (OR 0.15 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.24); p < 0.001) were significantly less prognostic. Improvement of the cement-bone interface including complete disappearance and poorly defined RLLs was identified in 15.1% of patients. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for the acetabular component at ten years with revision of the acetabular component for aseptic loosening as the end point was 100.0% with a RLL and 99.1% without a RLL (95% CI 97.9 to 100). With revision of the acetabular component for any reason as the end point, the survival rate was 99.2% with a RLL (95% CI 97.6 to 100) and 96.5% without a RLL (95% CI 93.4 to 99.7). Conclusion. This study demonstrates that acetabular bone quality, head diameter, structural bone graft, and hip centre position may influence the presence of the any RLL. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2021;2(5):278–292

There remains concern with the use of constrained liners (CL) implanted at the time of acetabular cup revision in revision total hip replacement (rTHA). The aim of this study was to determine the implant survival in rTHA when a CL was implanted at the same time as acetabular cup revision. We reviewed our institutional database to identify all consecutive rTHAs where a CL was implanted simultaneously at the time acetabular cup revision from 2001 to 2021. One-hundred and seventy-four revisions (173 patients) were included in the study. Mean follow-up of 8.7 years (range two – 21.7). The most common indications for rTHA were instability (35%), second-stage periprosthetic joint infection (26.4%), and aseptic loosening (17.2%). Kaplan Meier Analysis was used to determine survival with all-cause re-revision and revision for cup aseptic loosening (fixation failure) as the endpoints. A total of 32 (18.3%) patients underwent re-revision at a mean time of 2.9 years (range 0.1 – 14.1). The most common reasons for re-revision were instability (14), periprosthetic joint infection (seven), and loosening of the femoral component (four). Three (1.7%) required re-revision due to aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (fixation failure) at a mean of two years (0.1 – 5.1). Acetabular component survival free from re-revision due to aseptic loosening was 98.9% (95% CI 97.3 – 100) at five-years and 98.1% (95% CI 95.8 – 100) at 10-years. There were no acetabular component fixation failures in modern highly porous shells. CLs implanted at the time acetabular cup revision in rTHA have a 98.1% 10-year survival free from acetabular cup aseptic loosening (fixation failure). There were no cup fixation failures in modern highly porous shells. Thus, when necessary, implanting a CL during revision of an acetabular component with stable screw fixation is safe with an extremely low risk of cup fixation failure

Introduction. Cup malpositioning remains a common cause of dislocation, wear, osteolysis, and revision. The concept of a “Safe Zone” for acetabular component orientation was introduced more than 35 years ago1. The current study assesses CT studies of replaced hips to assess the concept of a safe zone for acetabular orientation by comparing the orientation of acetabular components revised due to recurrent instability and to a series of stable hip replacements. Methods. Cup orientation in 50 hips revised for recurrent instability was measured using CT. These hips were compared to a group of 184 stable hips measured using the same methods. Femoral anteversion in the stable hips was also measured. Images to assess femoral anteversion in the unstable group were not available. An application specific software modules was developed to measure cup orientation using CT (HipSextant Research Application 1.0.13 Surgical Planning Associates Inc., Boston, Massachusetts). The cup orientation was determined by first identifying Anterior Pelvic Plane Coordinate system landmarks on a 3D surface model. A multiplanar reconstruction module then allowed for the creation of a plane parallel with the opening plane of the acetabulum. The orientation of the cup opening plane in the AP Plane coordinate space was calculated according to Murray's definitions of operative anteversion and operative inclination2. Both absolute cup position relative to the APP and tilt-adjusted cup position3 were calculated. Results. Supine tilt-adjusted Operative anteversion for the anteriorly unstable hips was significantly higher than in the stable hips (p< .0001). Supine tilt-adjusted Operative anteversion for the posteriorly unstable hips was significantly lower than in the stable hips (p<.01). Alt in the supine position, all unstable hips had operative anteversion of less than 22.9 or more than 38.6 degrees or operative inclination of less than 30.6 or more than 55.9 degrees or both. The center of the “safe zone” is 30.7 +/− 7.8 degrees of tilt-adjusted operative anteversion and 42.4 +/− 13.5 degrees of operative inclination (Figure 1). Conclusions. The current study demonstrates that most conventionally placed acetabular components are malpositioned but not all malpositioned acetabular components are associated with dislocation. Using acetabular revision for recurrent instability as the end point, a safe zone for acetabular component orientation does exist. The range is narrower for anteversion than for inclination. Improved methods of defining component positioning goals on a patient-specific basis and accurately placing the acetabular component may reduce the incidence of cup mal-position and its associated complications. For figures and tables, please contact authors directly

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

Abstract. Background. Optimal acetabular component position in Total Hip Arthroplasty is vital for avoiding complications such as dislocation, impingement, abductor muscle strength and range of motion. Transverse acetabular ligament (TAL) and posterior labrum have been shown to be a reliable landmark to guide optimum acetabular cup position. There have been reports of iliopsoas impingement caused by both cemented and uncemented acetabular components. Acetabular component mal-positioning and oversizing of acetabular component are associated with iliopsoas impingement. The Psoas fossa (PF) is not a well-regarded landmark to help with Acetabular Component positioning. Our aim was to assess the relationship of the TAL and PF in relation to Acetabular Component positioning. Methods. A total of 12 cadavers were implanted with the an uncemented acetabular component, their position was initially aligned to TAL. Following optimal seating of the acetabular component the distance of the rim of the shell from the PF was noted. The Acetabular component was then repositioned inside the PF to prevent exposure of the rim of the Acetabular component. This study was performed at Smith & Nephew wet lab in Watford. Results. Out of the twelve acetabular components that were implanted parallel to the TAL, all had the acetabular rim very close or outside to the psoas notch with a potential to cause iliopsoas impingement. Alteration of the acetabular component position was necessary in all cadavers to inside the PF to prevent iliopsoas impingement. It was evident that the edge of PF was not aligned with TAL. Conclusion. Optimal acetabular component position is vital to the longevity and outcome following THA. TAL provides a landmark to guide acetabular component position. We feel the PF is a better landmark to allow appropriate positioning of the acetabular component inside bone without exposure of the component rim and thus preventing iliopsoas impingement at the psoas notch. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

Introduction. Cup malpositioning remains a common cause of dislocation, wear, osteolysis, and revision. The concept of a “Safe Zone” for acetabular component orientation was introduced more than 35 years ago1. The current study assesses CT studies of replaced hips to assess the concept of a safe zone for acetabular orientation by comparing the orientation of acetabular components revised due to recurrent instability and to a series of stable hip replacements. Methods. Cup orientation in 21 hips revised for recurrent instability was measured using CT. These hips were compared to a group of 115 stable hips measured using the same methods. Femoral anteversion in the stable hips was also measured. Images to assess femoral anteversion in the unstable group were not available. An application specific software modules was developed to measure cup orientation using CT (HipSextant Research Application 1.0.13 Surgical Planning Associates Inc., Boston, Massachusetts). The cup orientation was determined by first identifying Anterior Pelvic Plane Coordinate system landmarks on a 3D surface model. A multiplanar reconstruction module then allowed for the creation of a plane parallel with the opening plane of the acetabulum. The orientation of the cup opening plane in the AP Plane coordinate space was calculated according to Murray's definitions of operative anteversion and operative inclination2. Both absolute cup position relative to the APP and tilt-adjusted cup position3 were calculated. Results. Operative anteversion for the anteriorly unstable hips was significantly higher than in the stable hips (p < .001). Operative anteversion for the posteriorly unstable hips was significantly lower than in the stable hips (p=.01). Adjusting for pelvic tilt in the supine position, all unstable hips had operative anteversion of less than 22.9 or more than 38.6 degrees or operative inclination of less than 28.9 or more than 55.9 degrees or both. The center of the “safe zone” is 30.7 +/− 7.8 degrees of tilt-adjusted operative anteversion and 42.4 +/− 13.5 degrees of operative inclination. Conclusions. The current study demonstrates that most conventionally placed acetabular components are malpositioned but not all malpositioned acetabular components are associated with dislocation. Using acetabular revision for recurrent instability as the end point, a safe zone for acetabular component orientation does exist. The range is narrower for anteversion than for inclination. Improved methods of defining component positioning goals on a patient-specific basis and accurately placing the acetabular component may reduce the incidence of cup malposition and its associated complications

INTRODUCTION. Cup malpositioning remains a common cause of dislocation, wear, osteolysis, and revision. The concept of a “Safe Zone” for acetabular component orientation was introduced more than 35 years ago. 1. The current study assesses CT studies of replaced hips to assess the concept of a safe zone for acetabular orientation by comparing the orientation of acetabular components revised due to recurrent instability and to a series of stable hip replacements. METHODS. Cup orientation in 30 hips revisedin 27patients for recurrent instability was measured using CT. These hips were compared to a group of 115 stable hips measured using the same methods. Femoral anteversion in the stable hips was also measured. Images to assess femoral anteversion in the unstable group were not available. An application specific software modules was developed to measure cup orientation using CT (HipSextant Research Application 1.0.13 Surgical Planning Associates Inc., Boston, Massachusetts). The cup orientation was determined by first identifying Anterior Pelvic Plane Coordinate system landmarks on a 3D surface model. A multiplanar reconstruction module then allowed for the creation of a plane parallel with the opening plane of the acetabulum. The orientation of the cup opening plane in the AP Plane coordinate space was calculated according to Murray's definitions of operative anteversion and operative inclination. 2. Both absolute cup position relative to the APP and tilt-adjusted cup position. 3. were calculated. RESULTS. Operative anteversion for the anteriorly unstable hips was significantly higher than in the stable hips (p < 0.001). Operative anteversion for the posteriorly unstable hips was significantly lower than in the stable hips (p < 0.01). Adjusting for pelvic tilt in the supine position, all unstable hips had operative anteversion of less than 21.8 or more than 42.6 degrees or operative inclination of less than 30.6 or more than 55.9 degrees or both. The center of the “safe zone” is 32.2 ± 10.4 degrees of tilt-adjusted operative anteversion and 45.3 ± 8.7 degrees of operative inclination (Figure 1). CONCLUSIONS. The current study demonstrates that most conventionally placed acetabular components are malpositioned but not all malpositioned acetabular components are associated with dislocation. Using acetabular revision for recurrent instability as the end point, a safe zone for acetabular component orientation does exist. The range is narrower for anteversion than for inclination. Improved methods of accurately placing the acetabular component placement may reduce the incidence of cup malposition and its associated complications

A well-fixed uncemented acetabular component is most commonly removed for chronic infection, malposition with recurrent dislocation, and osteolysis. However, other cups may have to be removed for a broken locking mechanism, a bad “track record”, and for metal-on-metal articulation problems. Modern uncemented acetabular components are hemispheres which have 3-dimensional ingrowth patterns. Coatings include titanium or cobalt-chromium alloy beads, mesh, and now the so-called “enhanced coatings”, such as tantalum trabecular metal, various highly porous titanium metals, and 3-D printed metal coatings. These usually pose a problem for safe removal without fracture of the pelvis or creation of notable bone deficiency. Preoperative planning is essential for safe and efficient removal of these well-fixed components. Strongly consider getting the operative report, component “stickers”, and contacting the implant manufacturer for information. There should a preoperative check list of the equipment and trial implants needed, including various screwdrivers, trial liners, and a chisel system. The first step in component removal is excellent 360-degree exposure of the acetabular rim, and this can be accomplished by several approaches. Then, the acetabular polyethylene liner is removed; a liner that is cemented into a porous shell can be “reamed out” using a specific device. Following this, any central or peripheral screws are removed; broken or stripped screw heads add an additional challenge. A trial acetabular liner is placed, and an acetabular curved chisel system is used. There are two manufacturers of this type of system. Both require the known outer acetabular diameter and the inner diameter of the trial liner. With the curved chisel system and patience, well-fixed components can be safely removed, and the size of the next acetabular component to be implanted is usually 4mm larger than the one removed. There are special inserts for removal of monobloc metal shells. Remember that removal of these well-fixed components is more difficult in patients compared to models, and is just the first step of a successful acetabular revision

Background. Ultraporous metals have now been used in acetabular reconstruction for two decades with excellent survival. The purpose of this study is to evaluate a newer porous metal made from Ti6Al4V titanium alloy in complex primary and revision hip arthroplasty. Methods. A retrospective review as performed on all total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures in which a G7 Osseo-Ti (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN) acetabular component was used between 2015 and 2017. Patients with 2-year minimum follow-up or failure were included, yielding a cohort of 123 patients (126 hips). There were 50 male patients (41%; 51 hips) and 73 females (59%; 75 hips). Mean age was 65 years (range, 43–88) and mean BMI was 30.7 kg/m. 2. (range, 18–56). Indications for ultraporous metal components were in hips with compromised bone stock or severe acetabular deformity. Procedures were 35 complex primary THA and 91 revision THA that included 12 conversions and 24 reimplantations as part of 2-staged exchange for treatment of infection. Results. With an average 3.3-year follow-up (range, 2–5 years), 1 hip in the primary series (2.9%) and 4 hips in the revision series (4.4%) were revised for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component. Three of these re-revisions required custom triflange devices. Five patients (4%) failed for periprosthetic infection, which included 1 primary THA done for rheumatoid arthritis and post-radiation necrosis, and 4 second-stage reimplantation revision THAs for prior infection. Two revision patients, one done for active instability and one multiply revised, subsequently dislocated and required liner revision to constrained constructs. Kaplan-Meier analysis to endpoint of acetabular revision for aseptic loosening was 96.6% (±3.4%) in the primary series and 95.3% (±2.3%) in the revision series. Conclusion. This three-dimensionally printed ultraporous titanium acetabular component demonstrated promising early results in complex primary and revision total hip arthroplasty

Introduction:. Wear, wear-associated osteolysis, and instability are the most common reasons for revision total hip arthroplasty. These failures have been shown to be associated with acetabular component malpositioning. However, optimal acetabular component orientation on a patient-specific basis is currently unknown. The current study uses CT to assess acetabular orientation in a group of unstable hips as compared to a control group of stable hips. Methods:. Our institutional database of CT studies performed in the region of the hip beginning in February of 1998 (41,975 CT studies) was compared against our institutional database of revision total hip arthroplasties beginning in August of 2003 (2262 Revision THA) to identify CT studies of any hip treated for recurrent instability by revision of the acetabular component. Twenty hips in 20 patients with suitable CT studies were identified for the study group. Our control group consisted of 99 hips in 93 patients who had CT studies either for computer-assisted surgery on the contralateral side or for assessment of osteolysis. Using the CT data, the AP plane (APP) was defined, supine pelvic tilt was measured, and cup orientation was calculated by fitting a best fit plane to 6 points on the rim of the acetabular component. Cup orientation was calculated in degrees of operative anteversion and operative inclination according to the definitions of Murray. Both absolute cup position relative to the APP and tilt-adjusted cup position. 1. were calculated. Results:. The study group of 20 hips treated for instability showed a mean operative anteversion of 30.3 degrees (SD 17.6, range 1.0 to 58.1), a mean operative inclination of 35.9 degrees (SD 8.4, range 25.1 to 55.9), and a mean tilt-adjusted operative anteversion of 29.7 (SD 14.2, range 1.8 to 53). The control group of 99 hips showed a mean operative anteversion of 30.5 degrees (SD 10.7, range −1.9 to 57.5), a mean operative inclination of 37.7 degrees (SD 8.0, range 18.4 to 68.1), and a mean tilt-adjusted operative anteversion of 26.7 (SD 10.8, range −0.2 to 47.3). Most interestingly. all of the hips treated for instability had an operative anteversion of either 22.9 degrees or less or 38.67 degrees or more of tilt-adjusted operative inclination of either 30.5 degrees or less or 55.9 degrees or more, or both. The center of the safe zone in this study is 30.7 of tilt-adjusted operative anteversion and 43.2 degrees of operative inclination (Figure 1). There was no discernable safe zone in the non tilt-adjusted group. Discussion and Conclusion:. Most conventionally placed acetabular components are malpositioned but not all malpositioned acetabular components are associated with dislocation. The hip dislocation safe zone appears to be narrower in operative anteversion than in operative inclination. Improved methods of improving the accuracy and reliability of acetabular component placement may reduce the incidence of cup malposition and its associated complications