Failed total hip arthroplasty (THA) can require novel designs of revision implants that present unique risks as well as benefits. One of our patients endured a series of hip and knee revisions. In her twenties, she experienced a failed THA, became infected and all implants removed. In her early fifties (2008), she had a proximal femoral replacement incorporating a FreedomTM cup (Biomet, Warsaw, IN). She lacked hip musculature, was a dislocation risk, and cup constraint was necessary. Our choice of Freedom cup provided a 36mm head for enhanced stability and range-of-motion, plus the polyethylene liner was not as encompassing as other constrained designs, and the external clamping ring came pre-installed. This unique design allows for ease of head insertion during surgery. Our patient also had a CompressTM fixator combined knee-arthroplasty (Biomet). This knee fixation failed in 2013 and we installed a total femur combined hinge-knee arthroplasty. The Freedom cup was kept and post-op results were satisfactory.

Follow-up appeared satisfactory in 2014. Some liner eccentricity was apparent but the patient had no complaints. Radiographs in February 2016 indicated cup's locking-mechanism was possibly failing but patient had no complaints. By December follow-up of 2016, the patient claimed she had 3 falls, and her x-rays indicated a displaced head and dislodged liner. At revision, the liner appeared well-seated inside the acetabular shell. However, about 50% of the polyethylene rim was missing and the large detached circumferential fragment represented the other 50%. A new Freedom liner was installed and her follow-up appears satisfactory to date.

The fractured liner was sectioned through the thinnest wall (under detached rim fragment). The most critical design section was at site of the external locking ring, this wall thickness appearing < 3mm, whereas eccentric cup dome was 7.5–8mm thick. Under the detached rim fragment, wall thickness had been reduced (in vivo) to < 1mm. Given the robust rim profile, it seemed unlikely that the liner could have been spinning. The more likely scenario was that with repeated impingement, attempted subluxations by the femoral head stressed the contra- polyethylene rim, resulting in cold flow, thinning, and rim fragmentation. Two exemplar liners were compared, one similar to our patient's and one in a thicker design. Comparison of the sectioned retrieval to the new liners confirmed major loss of circumferential polyethylene.

Our learning experience was threefold; (i) if we had been aware of the thin wall limitation, possibly we could have inserted the thicker liner (larger shell), (ii) we could have been more alert to the impending liner failure (x- ray imaging), and (iii) positioning the cup in a more horizontal orientation may have been an alternate solution, i.e. more coverage (but perhaps more impingement). Use of a 32mm head would have facilitated a thicker liner but this option was unavailable. In conclusion, it was notable that this constrained liner functioned very well for 7 years in our complex case and was easily revised at 8 years to another Freedom liner.

Restoring native hip biomechanics is crucial to the success of THA. This is reflected both in terms of complications after surgery such as instability, leg length inequality, pain and limp; and in terms of patient satisfaction. The challenge that remains is that of achieving optimal implant sizing and positioning so as to restore, as closely as possible, the native hip biomechanics specific to the hip joint being replaced. This would optimise function and reduce complications, particularly, instability. (Mirza et al., 2010). Ideally, this skill should also be reproducible irrespective of the surgeon's experience, volume of surgery and learning curve.

The general consensus is that the most substantial limiting factor in a THA is the surgeon's performance and as a result, human errors and unintended complications are not completely avoidable (Tarwala and Dorr, 2011). The more challenging aspects include acetabular component version, sizing and femoral component sizing, offset and position in the femoral canal. This variability has led to interest in technologies for planning THA, and technologies that help in the execution of the procedure. Advances in surgical technology have led to the development of computer navigation and robotic systems, which assist in pre-operative planning and optimise intra-operative implant positioning.

The evolution of surgical technology in lower limb arthroplasty has led to the development of computer navigation and robotics, which are designed to minimise human error and improve implant positioning compared to pre-operative templating using plain radiographs. It is now possible to use pre-operative computerised tomography (image-based navigation) and/or anatomical landmarks (non-imaged-based navigation) to create three-dimensional images of each patient's unique anatomy. These reconstructions are then used to guide bone resection, implant positioning and lower limb alignment.

The second-generation RIO Robotic Arm Interactive Orthopaedic system (MAKO Surgical) uses pre-operative computerised tomography to build a computer-aided design (CAD) model of the patient's hip. The surgeon can then plan and execute optimal sizing and positioning of the prostheses to achieve the required bone coverage, minimise bone resection, restore joint anatomy and restore lower limb biomechanics. The MAKO robotic software processes this information to calculate the volume of bone requiring resection and creates a three-dimensional haptic window for the RIO-robotic arm to resect. The RIO-robotic arm has tactile and audio feedback to resect bone to a high degree of accuracy and preserve as much bone stock as possible.

We have used this technology in the hip to accurately reproduce the anteversion, closure and center of rotation that was planned for each hip. Whilst the precise safe target varies from patient to patient, the ability to reproduce native biomechanics, to gain fixation as planned and to get almost perfect length and offset are a great advantage. Complications such as instability and leg length inequality are thus dramatically reduced.

Longevity of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is dependent upon avoiding both short- and long-term problems. One of the most common short-term / early complications of THA is instability while longer term issues of wear remain a concern. Both of these concerns appear to be related to implant position: either static or functional. While achieving “ideal” implant position in primary THA for osteoarthritis is only successful in 50% of cases (Callanan et al.), it is even more difficult in complex primary disorders such as dysplasia and post-traumatic arthritis.

Many theories exist as to why implant position and short-term complications appear to be higher in this “complex primary” cohort but certainly the ability to achieve desired implant position appears to be more challenging. The loss of usual anatomic landmarks, the presence of soft tissue contractures, and the recognition of both pelvic and femoral deformities play a role.

Enabling technologies have emerged to help in achieving improved implant position. These technologies include both navigation (both imageless and image guided) as well as the newly adopted technology of robotic assistance. Robot-assisted THA is based upon a CT scan protocol. Three-dimensional pre-operative planning on both the femoral and acetabular side can be performed. Precision guided bone preparation and exacting implant delivery is achievable using robotic technology.

Examples of use of this technology in complex primary THA will be demonstrated including planning, preparation and implantation.

Background. Dynamic Hip Screw (DHS) is the most frequently used implant in management of intertrochanteric femoral fractures. There is a known statistical relationship between a tip-apex distance (TAD) >25mm and higher rate of implant failure. Our aim was to analyse all DHS procedures performed in our trust from seventeen months and compare their TAD values to the acceptable standard of ≤25mm. Methods. All patients undergoing DHS between April 2020-August 2021 were identified from our theatre system. Additionally, those presenting to hospital with implant failures were included. Patient demographics, date of surgery, fracture classification (AO) and date/mode of failure were recorded. Intraoperative fluoroscopy images were reviewed to calculate TAD, screw location and neck shaft angles by two independent observers. Results. 215 patients were identified, five of which were excluded due to inadequate fluoroscopy. Failure was seen in 3.3% of the cohort (n=7), of which 71.4% had an unacceptable TAD. In total, 21 patients (10%) had TAD >25mm, of whom 12 had superiorly and 15 had posteriorly placed screws. There were no failures in patients with a TAD of <20mm whereas a TAD >30mm had 50% failure rate. Conclusion. This audit reinforces the importance of aiming for a low TAD (preferably <20mm) intraoperatively. It is also desirable to avoid superiorly and significantly posteriorly placed screws. Implications. Complex hip revision surgery in the elderly bears substantial financial implications to the NHS and, more importantly, causes prolonged morbidity to the patient. Adhering to established standards will ensure reduced implant failure and best patient care

Although the introduction of ultraporous metals in the forms of acetabular components and augments has substantially improved the orthopaedic surgeon's ability to reconstruct severely compromised acetabuli, there remain some revision THAs that are beyond the scope of cups, augments, and cages. In situations involving catastrophic bone loss, allograft-prosthetic composites or custom acetabular components may be considered. Custom components offer the potential advantages of immediate, rigid fixation with a superior fit individualised to each patient. These custom triflange components require a preoperative CT scan with three-dimensional (3-D) reconstruction using rapid prototyping technology, which has evolved substantially during the past decade. The surgeon can fine-tune exact component positioning, determine location and length of screws, modify the fixation surface with, for example, the addition of hydroxyapatite, and dictate which screws will be locked to enhance fixation. The general indications for using custom triflange components include: (1) failed prior salvage reconstruction with cage or porous metal construct augments, (2) large contained defects with possible discontinuity, (3) known pelvic discontinuity, and (4) complex multiply surgically treated hips with insufficient bone stock to reconstruct using other means. We previously reported on our center's experience with 23 patients (24 hips) treated with custom triflange components with minimum 2-year follow-up. This method of reconstruction was used in a cohort of patients with Paprosky Type 3B acetabular defects, which represented 3% (30 of 955) of the acetabular revisions we performed during the study period of 2003 to 2012. At a mean follow-up of 4.8 years (range, 2.3 – 9 years) there were four subsequent surgical interventions: two failures secondary to sepsis, and one stem revision and one open reduction internal fixation for periprosthetic femoral fracture. There were two minor complications managed nonoperatively, but all of the components were noted to be well-fixed with no obvious migration or loosening observed on the most recent radiographs. Harris hip scores improved from a mean of 42 (SD ±16) before surgery to 65 (SD ±18) at latest follow-up (p < 0.001). More recently, we participated in a multi-center study of 95 patients treated with reconstruction using custom triflange components who had a mean follow-up of 3.5 years. Pelvic defects included Paprosky Type 2C, 3A, 3B and pelvic discontinuity. Concomitant femoral revision was performed in 21 hips. Implants used a mean of 12 screws with 3 locking screws. Twenty of 95 patients (21%) experienced at least one complication, including 6% dislocation, 6% infection, and 2% femoral-related issues. Implants were ultimately removed in 11% of hips. One hip was revised for possible component loosening. Survivorship with aseptic loosening as the endpoint was 99%. Custom acetabular triflange components represent yet another tool in the reconstructive surgeon's armamentarium. These devices can be helpful in situations of catastrophic bone loss, achieving reliable fixation. Clinical results are inferior to both primary THA and more routine revision THA. Patients and surgeons should be aware of the increased complications associated with these complex hip revisions

With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty, one of the major challenge is the management of bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) has already been popularised for tumour surgeries. The inherent advantages of PFR over allograft –prosthesis system, which is the other option for addressing severe bone loss include, early weight bearing and avoidance of non-union and disease transmission. Our study explores PFR as a possible solution for the management of complex hip revisions. Thirty consecutive hips (29 patients) that underwent PFR between January 2009 and December 2015 were reviewed retrospectively for their clinical and radiological outcomes. The Stanmore METS system was used in all these patients. Mean age at the index surgery (PFR) was 72.69 years (range 50–89) with number of previous hip arthroplasties ranging from 1–5. At mean follow up of 32.27 months, there were no peri-prosthetic fractures and no mechanical failure of the implants. Clearance of infection was achieved in 80% of cases. There was 1 early failure due to intra-operative perforation of femoral canal needing further revision and two were revised for deep infection. Instability was noted in 26.7% (8) of the hips, of which, 87.5% (7) needed further revision with constrained sockets. Out of these 8 hips with instability, 5 had pre-operative infection. Deep infection was noted in 20% (6) of the hips, of which, 5 were primarily revised with PFR for septic loosening. However, further surgeries were essential for only 3 patients. One patient has symptomatic aseptic acetabular loosening and 1 had asymptomatic progressive femoral side loosening (lost to follow up). Severe proximal femoral bone loss in complex revision arthroplasties has necessitated the use of PFR prosthesis. Our study supports the fact that PFR is probably a mechanically viable option for complex revisions. Significant numbers of dislocations and infections could be attributed to the poor soft tissue envelope around the hip. Further surgical techniques in the form use of dual mobility cups and silver coated PFR implants need to be explored

Although the introduction of ultraporous metals in the forms of acetabular components and augments has substantially improved the orthopaedic surgeon's ability to reconstruct severely compromised acetabuli, there remain some revision THAs that are beyond the scope of cups, augments, and cages. In situations involving catastrophic bone loss, allograft-prosthetic composites or custom acetabular components may be considered. Custom components offer the potential advantages of immediate, rigid fixation with a superior fit individualised to each patient. These custom triflange components require a pre-operative CT scan with 3-D reconstruction using rapid prototyping technology. The surgeon can fine-tune exact component positioning, determine location and length of screws, modify the fixation surface with, for example, the addition of hydroxyapatite, and dictate which screws will be locked to enhance fixation. The general indications for using custom triflange components include: (1) failed prior salvage reconstruction with cage or porous metal construct augments, (2) large contained defects with possible discontinuity, (3) known pelvic discontinuity, and (4) complex multiply surgically treated hips with insufficient bone stock to reconstruct using other means. The general indications for using custom triflange components include: (1) failed prior salvage reconstruction with cage or porous metal construct augments, (2) large contained defects with possible discontinuity, (3) known pelvic discontinuity, and (4) complex multiply surgically treated hips with insufficient bone stock to reconstruct using other means. We previously reported on our center's experience with 23 patients (24 hips) treated with custom triflange components with minimum 2-year follow-up. This method of reconstruction was used in a cohort of patients with Paprosky Type 3B acetabular defects, which represented 3% (30 of 955) of the acetabular revisions we performed during the study period of 2003 to 2012. At a mean follow-up of 4.8 years (range, 2.3–9 years) there were 4 subsequent surgical interventions: 2 failures secondary to sepsis, and 1 stem revision and 1 open reduction internal fixation for periprosthetic femoral fracture. There were two minor complications managed non-operatively, but all of the components were noted to be well-fixed with no obvious migration or loosening observed on the most recent radiographs. Harris Hip Scores improved from a mean of 42 (SD ±16) before surgery to 65 (SD ±18) at latest follow-up (p<0.001). More recently, we participated in a multi-center study of 95 patients treated with reconstruction using custom triflange components w a mean follow-up of 3.5 years. Pelvic defects included Paprosky Type 2C, 3A, 3B and pelvic discontinuity. Concomitant femoral revision was performed in 21 hips. Implants used a mean of 12 screws with 3 locking screws. Twenty of 95 patients (21%) experienced at least one complication, including 6% dislocation, 6% infection, and 2% femoral-related issues. Implants were ultimately removed in 11% of hips. One hip was revised for possible component loosening. Survivorship with aseptic loosening as the endpoint was 99%. Custom acetabular triflange components represent yet another tool in the reconstructive surgeon's armamentarium. These devices can be helpful in situations of catastrophic bone loss, achieving reliable fixation. Clinical results are inferior to both primary THA and more routine revision THA. Patients and surgeons should be aware of the increased complications associated with these complex hip revisions

Introduction. Range of motion (ROM) simulation of the hip is useful to understand the maximum impingement free ROM in total hip arthroplasty (THA). In spite of a complex multi-directional movement of the hip in daily life, most of the previous reports have evaluated the ROM only in specific directions such as flexion-extension, abduction-adduction, and internal - external rotation at 0° or 90° of hip flexion. Therefore, we developed ROM simulation software (THA analyzer) to measure impingement free ROM in any positions of the hip. Recent designs of the hip implants give a wider ROM by increasing the head diameter and then, bone to bone impingement can be a ROM limit factor particularly in a combination of deep flexion, adduction and internal rotation of the hip. Therefore, the purpose of this study were to observe an individual variation in the pattern of the bone impingement ROM in normal hip bone models using this software, to classify the bone impingement ROM mapping types and to clarify the factors affecting the bone impingement type. Methods. The subjects were 15 normal hips of 15 patients. Three dimensional surface models of the pelvis and femur were reconstructed from Computer tomography (CT) images. We performed virtual hip implantation with the same center of rotation, femoral offset, and leg length as the original hips. Subsequently, we created the ROM mapping until bone impingement using THA analyzer. We measured the following factors influenced on the bone impingement map patterns; the neck shaft angle, the femoral offset, femoral anteversion, pelvic tilt, acetabular anteversion, sharp angle, and CE angle. These factors were compared between the two groups. Statistical analysis was performed with Mann-Whitney U test, and statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Results. According to the borderline of ROM at the flexion-internal rotation corner on the bone impingement map, the hips were classified into two groups; group-A showed more than 45° of the borderline slope at the flexion-internal rotation corner and the remaining hips were group-B. (Fig.1). There were 7 hips in group-A and 8 hips in group-B. Femoral offset was 36.8±2.2 mm in group-A and 30±2.7 mm in group-B. Femoral anteversion was 32±6.4° in-group A and 43 ±4.8° in group-B. There were statistically significant differences in the femoral offset and femoral anteversion between the groups. There were no significant differences in the other factors. Discussion. The results of this study showed various ROM map patterns even in normal hips and we classified them into two groups. An increased femoral offset or a decreased femoral anteversion revealed an early impinge in internal rotation. ROM until bone impingement is affected by the individual bone morphology. However, it is not easy to evaluate bony ROM in complex hip positions. THA analyzer shows the impingement position visually on the map and it is easy to understand the hip positions with reduced ROMs. Conclusion. There are two patterns on the bony ROM map in normal hips, and an early impinge in internal rotation occurred by increasing the femoral offset or decreasing the femoral anteversion. For figures/tables, please contact authors directly.

Although the introduction of ultraporous metals in the forms of acetabular components and augments has substantially improved the orthopaedic surgeon's ability to reconstruct severely compromised acetabuli, there remain some revision THAs that are beyond the scope of cups, augments, and cages. In situations involving catastrophic bone loss, allograft-prosthetic composites or custom acetabular components may be considered. Custom components offer the potential advantages of immediate, rigid fixation with a superior fit individualised to each patient. These custom triflange components require a pre-operative CT scan with three-dimensional (3-D) reconstruction using rapid prototyping technology, which has evolved substantially during the past decade. The surgeon can fine-tune exact component positioning, determine location and length of screws, modify the fixation surface with, for example, the addition of hydroxyapatite, and dictate which screws will be locked to enhance fixation. The general indications for using custom triflange components include: (1) failed prior salvage reconstruction with cage or porous metal construct augments, (2) large contained defects with possible discontinuity, (3) known pelvic discontinuity, and (4) complex multiply surgically treated hips with insufficient bone stock to reconstruct using other means. The general indications for using custom triflange components include: (1) failed prior salvage reconstruction with cage or porous metal construct augments, (2) large contained defects with possible discontinuity, (3) known pelvic discontinuity, and (4) complex multiply surgically treated hips with insufficient bone stock to reconstruct using other means. We previously reported on our center's experience with 23 patients (24 hips) treated with custom triflange components with minimum 2-year follow-up. This method of reconstruction was used in a cohort of patients with Paprosky Type 3B acetabular defects, which represented 3% (30 of 955) of the acetabular revisions we performed during the study period of 2003 to 2012. At a mean follow-up of 4.8 years (range, 2.3–9 years) there were 4 subsequent surgical interventions: 2 failures secondary to sepsis, and 1 stem revision and 1 open reduction internal fixation for periprosthetic femoral fracture. There were 2 minor complications managed nonoperatively, but all of the components were noted to be well-fixed with no obvious migration or loosening observed on the most recent radiographs. Harris hip scores improved from a mean of 42 (SD ± 16) before surgery to 65 (SD ± 18) at latest follow-up (p<0.001). More recently, we participated in a multi-center study of 95 patients treated with reconstruction using custom triflange components who had a mean follow-up of 3.5 years. Pelvic defects included Paprosky Type 2C, 3A, 3B and pelvic discontinuity. Concomitant femoral revision was performed in 21 hips. Implants used a mean of 12 screws with 3 locking screws. Twenty of 95 patients (21%) experienced at least one complication, including 6% dislocation, 6% infection, and 2% femoral-related issues. Implants were ultimately removed in 11% of hips. One hip was revised for possible component loosening. Survivorship with aseptic loosening as the endpoint was 99%,. Custom acetabular triflange components represent yet another tool in the reconstructive surgeon's armamentarium. These devices can be helpful in situations of catastrophic bone loss, achieving reliable fixation. Clinical results are inferior to both primary THA and more routine revision THA. Patients and surgeons should be aware of the increased complications associated with these complex hip revisions

To wake up in the morning facing a complex total hip revision can be unpleasant. Modern designs have greatly facilitated dealing with the most difficult revision situations both on the acetabular and femoral side. The surgeon faces blood loss, dislocation, infection, and a litany of other potential complications. Our advances in total hip revision have been outstanding but can pose very complex issues. Total knee revision on the other hand is easier. The surgeon needs to ask a series of questions pre-operatively and intra-operatively. Pre-operatively, one must know the mechanism of failure. You also need to know “what is missing” in terms of skin, soft tissue, extensor mechanism, bone and ligaments. Intra-operatively, the surgeon must know the difference between the flexion and extension gap, the position of the joint line, the extent of the bone loss and whether it is load bearing or non-load bearing, the ligamentous stability and the intramedullary shaft. Most modern knee revision designs allow the surgeon to create a paradigm to deal with all of these potential problems. There, of course, are complex problems of malalignment, periprosthetic fracture and other deformities that add a level of complexity but most of these can be dealt with using standard revision designs without requiring custom prostheses