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. We compared two groups, one made via 3D-printing (n = 7) and the other using conventional techniques (n = 7). We collected implant details, type of surgery and removal technique, patient demographics, and clinical history. Bone integration was assessed by macroscopic visual analysis, followed by sectioning to allow undecalcified histology on eight sections (~200 µm) for each implant. The outcome measures considered were area of bone attachment (%), extent of bone ingrowth (%), bone-implant contact (%), and depth of ingrowth (%), and these were quantified using a line-intercept method.Aims
Methods
As our understanding of hip function and disease improves, it is evident that the acetabular fossa has received little attention, despite it comprising over half of the acetabulum’s surface area and showing the first signs of degeneration. The fossa’s function is expected to be more than augmenting static stability with the ligamentum teres and being a templating landmark in arthroplasty. Indeed, the fossa, which is almost mature at 16 weeks of intrauterine development, plays a key role in hip development, enabling its nutrition through vascularization and synovial fluid, as well as the influx of chondrogenic stem/progenitor cells that build articular cartilage. The pulvinar, a fibrofatty tissue in the fossa, has the same developmental origin as the synovium and articular cartilage and is a biologically active area. Its unique anatomy allows for homogeneous distribution of the axial loads into the joint. It is composed of intra-articular adipose tissue (IAAT), which has adipocytes, fibroblasts, leucocytes, and abundant mast cells, which participate in the inflammatory cascade after an insult to the joint. Hence, the fossa and pulvinar should be considered in decision-making and surgical outcomes in hip preservation surgery, not only for their size, shape, and extent, but also for their biological capacity as a source of cytokines, immune cells, and chondrogenic stem cells. Cite this article:
Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic bone
disease (MBD) have been available to the orthopaedic community for
more than a decade, with little improvement in service provision
to this increasingly large patient group. Improvements in adjuvant
and neo-adjuvant treatments have increased both the number and overall
survival of patients living with MBD. As a consequence the incidence
of complications of MBD presenting to surgeons has increased and
is set to increase further. The British Orthopaedic Oncology Society
(BOOS) are to publish more revised detailed guidelines on what represents
‘best practice’ in managing patients with MBD. This article is designed
to coincide with and publicise new BOOS guidelines and once again
champion the cause of patients with MBD. A series of short cases highlight common errors frequently being
made in managing patients with MBD despite the availability of guidelines.Objectives
Methods