Aims

To determine whether obesity and malnutrition have a synergistic effect on outcomes from skeletal trauma or elective orthopaedic surgery.

The October 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Does the primary surgical approach matter when choosing the approach for revision total hip arthroplasty?; Time to achieve the minimal clinically important difference in primary total hip arthroplasty: comparison of anterior and posterior surgical approaches; To scope or not to scope: arthroscopy as an adjunct to PAO does not provide better clinical outcomes at one year than PAO alone; Re-exploring horizons in hip resurfacing: two-year results of a ceramic-on-ceramic hip resurfacing; Association between tranexamic acid and decreased periprosthetic joint infection risk in patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty; Octogenarians fare well: in revision for infection age is not a bar

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.

This study aimed to verify the hypothesis that an antibiotic loaded hydrogel, defensive antimicrobial coating (DAC), reduces overall complication and infection rates when used for high-risk primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). This was a retrospective study matched cohort study of 238 patients, treated with cementless implants with and without DAC. A sub-group analysis of patients undergoing 2nd stage revision THA for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) was also conducted. Re-infection rates within 2 years, complications necessitating surgical intervention and radiographic analysis for aseptic loosening was assessed. The mean age was 68.3±11.5 years, with 39 (32.8%) Macpherson class A, 64 (53.8%) class B and 16 (13.4%) class C patients. 4 (3.4%) patients in the DAC group developed complications including 1 PJI and 1 delayed wound healing, while 13 (10.9%) patients in the control group developed complications including 5 PJIs and 3 delayed wound healing (p=0.032). PJI rates (p=0.136) and delayed wound healing rates (p=0.337) were not statistically significant. For 2nd stage revision THA for PJI there were 86 patients in the DAC group and 45 in the control group. 1 (1.2%) patient in the DAC group developed complications with no recurrences of infection or delayed wound healing, while 10 (22.2%) patients in the control group developed complications including 4 recurrent PJI and 1 delayed wound healing (p=0.003). Recurrent PJI rates were statistically significant (p=0.005) while delayed wound healing rates were not (p=0.165). Patients treated with DAC also had lower rates of aseptic loosening (0% vs 6.7%; p=0.015). Antibiotic impregnated hydrogel coatings on cementless implants showed decreased complication rates after complex primary or revision THA. In 2nd stage revision THA for PJI, it was associated with reduced risk of re-infection and aseptic loosening

Dislocation is a serious complication to be avoided in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and its incidence risk increases in revision surgery. Combined anteversion (CA) of the cup and stem is a concept for appropriate implant positioning; however, the effect of functional changes in femoral rotation has not been well investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate whether functional CA, considering femoral rotation, is associated with dislocation in patients undergoing revision THA.

Seventy-three patients who underwent revision THA and had at least one year of follow-up with pre- and postoperative supine CT imaging were included. Cup and stem were placed with a target combined angle of 37.3° using Widmer's formula. Anatomical and functional CA was calculated postoperatively using the following formula: Anatomical CA: cup anteversion + 0.7 × anatomical stem anteversion; Functional CA: cup anteversion + 0.7 × (anatomical stem anteversion + femoral rotation). Patient demographics, cup and stem angles, CA and their relationship to dislocation were statistically evaluated.

Dislocation was observed in 12 patients. In these dislocated cases, there were no significant differences in cup angle, stem angle and anatomical CA compared to non-dislocated cases. However, dislocated cases showed significantly higher values of functional CA [52.7 ± 17.5° (range, 5.9–69.3) vs. 36.0 ± 12.5° (range, 8.6–68.8), p=0.009] and significant deviation from identical CA [17.3 ± 9.6° (range, 2.8–32) vs. 7.5 ± 7.1° (range, 0.1–28.7), p=0.010].

Functional CA considering femoral rotation was associated with dislocation in revision THA patients. This finding suggests that consideration of femoral rotation may be necessary for implant positioning in revision THA.

Studies and meta-analyses worldwide show an increased use of one-stage revisions for treating periprosthetic hip infections, often yielding comparable or better outcomes than two-stage revisions. However, it remains unclear if these successful results can be consistently achieved nationwide besides large centers. This observational cohort study used data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) to compare the mortality and re-revision rates between one-stage (n=8183) and two-stage (n=657) first-time revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA). Kaplan-Meier estimates were applied to evaluate the re-revision rate and cumulative mortality for RTHA. There was a significant difference in mortality between one-stage and two-stage RTHA (p=0.02). One-year post-surgery, the mortality rate was 9.4% for one-stage revisions and 5.5% for two-stage revisions. At the five-year follow-up, the mortality rate for one-stage revisions was 25.5%, compared to 20.0% for two-stage revisions. No significant differences (p=0.30) were found in re-revision rates between one-stage and two-stage revisions after one year (one-stage 16.5% vs. two-stage 13.5%) or five years (one-stage 21.6% vs. two-stage 20.8%). For multiple revisions, the mortality differences were even larger (p<0.001), with a one-year mortality rate of 12.8% for one-stage RTHA and 5.7% for two-stage RTHA. Despite the excellent results of one-stage RTHA in the literature from individual large centers, it shows a significantly higher mortality rate with equal re-revision rate compared to two-stage revision in the nationwide care besides large centers. Significant differences can already be seen within the first year, indicating an increased perioperative mortality for one-stage revision, which might be explained by longer surgery duration, blood-loss and patient selection or maybe a lack of experience concerning proper surgical debridement for one-stage revision. This illustrates the need to establish centers for joint-revision surgery that provide interdisciplinary care and high case numbers to improve perioperative outcomes

For over a decade, modular titanium fluted tapered (TFT) stems have demonstrated excellent clinical success for femoral revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgery. The aim of this study was to report the short-term outcomes of a novel modern monoblock TFT stem used for revision and complex primary THA with a minimum of 2 years follow-up. We identified 126 patients who received a single monoblock TFT stem - 26 patients for complex THA (failed fracture fixation) and 100 patients for revision THA. The reasons for revision THA included 40 for previous prosthetic joint infection (PJI), 42 for aseptic loosening, 9 for trunnionosis, 9 for periprosthetic fractures. The Paprosky grading for femoral bone loss at the time of surgery and the measured subsidence of femoral stems at 3 months follow-up were determined. We evaluated the number and indications for re-operations. The mean time from surgery was 3.9 years (range 2.0 to 6.9 years). A paired t-test analysis showed significant improvement from pre-operative versus post-operative clinical outcome scores (p<0.001) for HHS (38.76 +/- 15.24vs. 83.42 +/- 15.38), WOMAC (45.6 ± 19.0 vs. 69.9 ± 21.3) and SF-12 Physical component (31.7 ± 8.1 vs. 37.8 ± 11.3) and SF-12 Mental component (48.2 ± 12.2 vs. 51.6 ± 12.5). The Paprosky grading for femoral bone loss was Grade 1 (3.9%), Grade 2 (35.7%), Grade 3A (47.6%), Grade 3B (11.1%) and Grade 4 (1.6%) cases. There were 18 re-operations (14.7%) with 13 for PJI (7 treated with implant retention, 6 treated with a two-staged revision), 4 for instability and one for acetabular aseptic loosening. There were no aseptic failures of the stem. This novel modern monoblock TFT stem provided reliable femoral fixation and has increasingly supplanted the use of modular TFT stems for complex primary and revision surgery in our institution

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

Dislocation following revision THA remains a leading cause of failure. Integrity of the abductor muscles is a major contributor to stability. Large diameter heads (LDH), Dual Mobility (DM) and Constrained Acetabular Liners (CAL) are enhanced stability options but the indication for these choices remains unclear.

We assessed an algorithm based on Gluteus Medius (GM) deficiency to determine bearing selection. Default choice with no GM damage was a LDH. GM deficiency with posterior muscle intact received DM and CAL for GM complete deficiency with loss of posterior muscle.

Consecutive revision THA series followed to determine dislocation, all-cause re-revision and Oxford Hip Score (OHS).

311 revision THA with mean age 70 years (32–95). At a mean follow-up of 4.8 years overall dislocation rate 4.1% (95%CI 2.4–7.0) and survivorship free of re-revision 94.2% (95%CI 96.3–91.0). Outcomes:

Group 1 - LDH (36 & 40mm) n=164 / 4 dislocations / 7 re-revisions

Group 2 - DM n=73 / 3 dislocations / 4 re-revisions

Group 3 - CAL n=58 / 5 dislocations / 7 re-revisions

Group 4 - Other (28 & 32mm) n=16 / 1 dislocation / no re-revisions

Mean pre-op OHS: 19.6 (2–47) and mean post-op OHS: 33.9 (4–48). Kaplan-Meier analysis at 60 months dislocation-free survival was 96.1% (95% CI: 93.0–97.8). There was no difference between survival distributions comparing bearing choice (p=0.46).

Decision making tools to guide selection are limited and in addition soft tissue deficiency has been poorly defined. The posterior vertical fibres of GM have the greatest lateral stabiliser effect on the hip. The algorithm we have used clearly defined indication & implant selection. We believe our outcomes support the use of an enhanced stability bearing selection algorithm.

Implant fracture of modular revision stems is a major complication after total hip arthroplasty revision (rTHA). Studies looking at specific modular designs report fracture rates of 0.3% to 0.66% whereas fractures of monobloc designs are only reported anecdotally. It is unclear whether the overall re-revision rate of modular designs is higher and if, whether stem fractures or other revision reasons are responsible for this elevation.

All revisions within 5 years after implantation of a revision stems (n₀=13,900; n₅=2506) were analysed using Cox regression with design (modular: n=17, monobloc: n=27), BMI, Sex and Elixhauser Score as independent variables. One stage and two stage revisions were analysed separately (1-stage: modular n= 7,102; monobloc n= 4,542; 2-stage: 1,551 / 704). The revision volume of the hospitals was also considered (low: <20 revisions, medium: 21–50 revisions, high: >50 revisions).

For the 1-stage revisions, the re-revision risk after 4 years was 14,3% [13.2%, 15.5%] for monobloc and 17.4% [16.40%, 18.40%] for modular stems (p< 0.001). Stem fracture was the reason for re-revision in 2.4% of the modular (fracture rate 0.42%) and 0.6% of the monobloc revisions. The difference in re-revision rates between the designs was mainly due to differences in dislocation and stem loosening. For the 2-stage revisions, the revision risks for either design were similar (21.7% [18,5%, 25.4%] vs. 23.0% [20.8%, 25.4%]; p=0.05). Patient characteristics influenced the comparison between the two designs in the 1-stage group but very little in the 2-stage group.

Modular revision stem fractures only contribute very minor to re-revision risk. In 2-stage revisions, no difference in overall re-revision rates between designs was observed. This might indicate that the differences observed for 1-stage procedures are due to differences between the patient cohorts, not reflected by the parameters available or surgeon choice.

The Paprosky acetabular bone defect classification system and related algorithms for acetabular reconstruction cannot properly guide cementless acetabular reconstruction in the presence of porous metal augments.

We aimed to introduce a rim, points, and column (RPC)-oriented cementless acetabular reconstruction algorithm and its clinical and radiographic outcomes.

A total of 123 patients (128 hips) were enrolled. A minimum 5-year radiographic follow-up was available for 96 (75.8%) hips. The mean clinical and radiographic follow-up durations were 6.8±0.9 (range: 5.2–9.2) and 6.3±1.9 (range: 5.0–9.2) years, respectively.

Harris hip score (HHS) improved significantly from 35.39±9.91 preoperatively to 85.98±12.81 postoperatively (P<0.001). Among the fixation modes, 42 (32.8%) hips were reconstructed with rim fixation, 42 (32.8%) with three-point fixation without point reconstruction, 40 (31.3%) with three-point fixation combined with point reconstruction, and 4 (3.1%) with three-point fixation combined with pelvic distraction. Complementary medial wall reconstruction was performed in 20 (15.6%) patients. All acetabular components were radiographically stable. Nine-year cumulative Kaplan–Meier survival rates for 123 patients with the endpoint defined as periprosthetic joint infection, any reoperation, and dissatisfaction were 96.91% (confidence interval [CI]: 86.26%, 99.34%), 97.66% (CI: 92.91%, 99.24%), and 96.06% (CI: 86.4%, 98.89%), respectively.

Cup stability in cementless acetabular reconstruction depends on rim or three-point fixation. The continuity of the anterior and posterior columns determines whether the points provide adequate stability to the cup. Medial wall reconstruction is an important complementary fixation method for rim or three-point fixation. The patients who underwent cementless acetabular reconstruction guided by the RPC decision-making algorithm demonstrated satisfactory mid-term clinical function, satisfaction levels, radiographic results, and complication rates.

Aims. The number of revision arthroplasties being performed in the elderly is expected to rise, including revision for infection. The primary aim of this study was to measure the treatment success rate for octogenarians undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared to a younger cohort. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality. Methods. Patients undergoing one- or two-stage revision of a primary THA for PJI between January 2008 and January 2021 were identified. Age, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), McPherson systemic host grade, and causative organism were collated for all patients. PJI was classified as ‘confirmed’, ‘likely’, or ‘unlikely’ according to the 2021 European Bone and Joint Infection Society criteria. Primary outcomes were complications, reoperation, re-revision, and successful treatment of PJI. A total of 37 patients aged 80 years or older and 120 patients aged under 80 years were identified. The octogenarian group had a significantly lower BMI and significantly higher CCI and McPherson systemic host grades compared to the younger cohort. Results. The majority of patients were planned to undergo two-stage revision, although a significantly higher proportion of the octogenarians did not proceed with the second stage (38.7% (n = 12) vs 14.8% (n = 16); p = 0.003). Although there was some evidence of a lower complication rate in the younger cohort, this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.065). No significant difference in reoperation (21.6% (n = 8) vs 25.0% (n = 30); p = 0.675) or re-revision rate (8.1% (n = 3) vs 16.7% (n = 20); p = 0.288) was identified between the groups. There was no difference in treatment success between groups (octogenarian 89.2% (n = 33) vs control 82.5% (n = 99); p = 0.444). Conclusion. When compared to a younger cohort, octogenarians did not show a significant difference in complication, re-revision, or treatment success rates. However, given they are less likely to be eligible to proceed with second stage revision, consideration should be given to either single-stage revision or use of an articulated spacer to maximize functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):802–807

Aims

This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data.

In this study, we examined the impact of dual-mobility (DM) versus fixed-bearing (FB) implants on outcomes following total hip arthroplasty (THA), a common and successful operation. We examined all-cause revision, revision due to dislocation, postoperative complications and functional scores in patients undergoing primary and revision THA.

A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines, and was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42023403736). The Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to 12th March 2023. Eligible studies underwent meta-analysis and methodological assessment using the ROBINS-I tool. Data were pooled using a random-effects maximum-likelihood model.

Eight comparative, non-randomised studies involving 2,810 DM implants and 3,188 FB implants were included. In primary THA, the difference in all-cause revision was imprecise (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.25–2.72), whilst the DM cohort had a statistically significant benefit in revision due to dislocation (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02–0.28). In revision THA, the DM cohort showed significant benefit in all-cause revision (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31–1.05) and revision due to dislocation (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04–0.53). DM implants were associated with a lower incidence of implant dislocation and infection. Functional outcome analysis was limited due to underreporting. No intraprosthetic dislocations were observed.

The results suggest that contemporary DM designs may be advantageous in reducing the risk of all-cause revision, revision due to dislocation, and postoperative complication incidence at mid-term follow-up. Further high-quality prospective studies are needed to evaluate the long-term performance of this design, especially in revision cases.

The number of revision total hip arthroplasties (THA) is increasing. This procedure is associated with a higher complication rate than primary THA, and so it is important for patients to have realistic expectations. The aim of this systematic review was to gather and summarise the available evidence on patients’ expectations following revision THA. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, Google Scholar and Web of Science from inception to December 2021. Methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NIH) study quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. The search strategy generated 3132 references of which 4 articles met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality scores ranged from 7–10. Patients have high expectations concerning future walking ability, pain and implant longevity. Implant longevity expectations vary according to the longevity of the primary implant. A significant positive correlation was found between fulfilled expectations of pain and walking ability and patient satisfaction (r = .46 – .47). Only one study assessed fulfilment of patient expectations. Great variability was seen in operationalisation and assessment of expectations. Patients undergoing revision THA appear to have high expectations with regards to future outcomes. Whilst results are promising, there is a paucity of high-quality data in this area. Further research is needed, which places emphasis on developing a sound theoretical framework for expectations, allowing for the consistent implementation of valid measurement tools

Aims. Accurate diagnosis of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) presents a significant challenge for hip surgeons. Preoperative diagnosis is not always easy to establish, making the intraoperative decision-making process crucial in deciding between one- and two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Calprotectin is a promising point-of-care novel biomarker that has displayed high accuracy in detecting PJI. We aimed to evaluate the utility of intraoperative calprotectin lateral flow immunoassay (LFI) in THA patients with suspected chronic PJI. Methods. The study included 48 THAs in 48 patients with a clinical suspicion of PJI, but who did not meet European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) PJI criteria preoperatively, out of 105 patients undergoing revision THA at our institution for possible PJI between November 2020 and December 2022. Intraoperatively, synovial fluid calprotectin was measured with LFI. Cases with calprotectin levels ≥ 50 mg/l were considered infected and treated with two-stage revision THA; in negative cases, one-stage revision was performed. At least five tissue cultures were obtained; the implants removed were sent for sonication. Results. Calprotectin was positive (≥ 50 mg/l) in 27 cases; out of these, 25 had positive tissue cultures and/or sonication. Calprotectin was negative in 21 cases. There was one false negative case, which had positive tissue cultures. Calprotectin showed an area under the curve of 0.917, sensitivity of 96.2%, specificity of 90.9%, positive predictive value of 92.6%, negative predictive value of 95.2%, positive likelihood ratio of 10.6, and negative likelihood ratio of 0.04. Overall, 45/48 patients were correctly diagnosed and treated by our algorithm, which included intraoperative calprotectin measurement. This yielded a 93.8% concordance with postoperatively assessed EBJIS criteria. Conclusion. Calprotectin can be a valuable tool in facilitating the intraoperative decision-making process for cases in which chronic PJI is suspected and diagnosis cannot be established preoperatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):118–124

Aims

Uncemented implants are now commonly used at reimplantation of a two-stage revision total hip arthoplasty (THA) following periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, there is a paucity of data on the performance of the most commonly used uncemented femoral implants – modular fluted tapered (MFT) femoral components – in this setting. This study evaluated implant survival, radiological results, and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of reimplantation THAs using MFT components.

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.

Aims. There is little information in the literature about the use of dual-mobility (DM) bearings in preventing re-dislocation in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to compare the use of DM bearings, standard bearings, and constrained liners in revision THA for recurrent dislocation, and to identify risk factors for re-dislocation. Methods. We reviewed 86 consecutive revision THAs performed for dislocation between August 2012 and July 2019. A total of 38 revisions (44.2%) involved a DM bearing, while 39 (45.3%) and nine (10.5%) involved a standard bearing and a constrained liner, respectively. Rates of re-dislocation, re-revision for dislocation, and overall re-revision were compared. Radiographs were assessed for the positioning of the acetabular component, the restoration of the centre of rotation, leg length, and offset. Risk factors for re-dislocation were determined by Cox regression analysis. The modified Harris Hip Scores (mHHSs) were recorded. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision was 70 years (43 to 88); 54 were female (62.8%). The mean follow-up was 5.0 years (2.0 to 8.75). Results. DM bearings were used significantly more frequently in elderly patients (p = 0.003) and in hips with abductor deficiency (p < 0.001). The re-dislocation rate was 13.2% for DM bearings compared with 17.9% for standard bearings, and 22.2% for constrained liners (p = 0.432). Re-revision-free survival for DM bearings was 84% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.91) compared with 74% (95% CI 0.67 to 0.81) for standard articulations, and 67% (95% CI 0.51 to 0.82) for constrained liners (p = 0.361). Younger age (hazard ratio (HR) 0.92 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.99); p = 0.031), lower comorbidity (HR 0.44 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.95); p = 0.037), smaller heads (HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.99); p = 0.046), and retention of the acetabular component (HR 8.26 (95% CI 1.37 to 49.96); p = 0.022) were significantly associated with re-dislocation. All DM bearings which re-dislocated were in patients with abductor muscle deficiency (HR 48.34 (95% CI 0.03 to 7,737.98); p = 0.303). The radiological analysis did not reveal a significant relationship between restoration of the geometry of the hip and re-dislocation. The mean mHHSs significantly improved from 43 points (0 to 88) to 67 points (20 to 91; p < 0.001) at the final follow-up, with no differences between the types of bearing. Conclusion. We found that the use of DM bearings reduced the rates of re-dislocation and re-revision in revision THA for recurrent dislocation, but did not guarantee stability. Abductor deficiency is an important predictor of persistent instability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):89–97

Aims

The aims of this study were to determine the success of a reconstruction algorithm used in major acetabular bone loss, and to further define the indications for custom-made implants in major acetabular bone loss.