Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique. At our center we use three types of cage constructs –. (A). Conventional cage ± structural or morselised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture, This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important. (B). Conventional cage in combination with a porous augment where contact with bleeding host bone can be with the ilium and then by the use of cement that construct can be unified. The augment provides contact with bleeding host bone and if and when ingrowth occurs, the stress is taken off the cage. (C). Cup-Cage Construct – in this construct there must be enough bleeding host bone to stabilise the ultra-porous cup which functions like a structural allograft supporting and eventually taking the stress off the cage. This construct is ideal for pelvic discontinuity with the ultra-porous cup, i.e., bridging and to some degree distracting the discontinuity. If, however, the ultra-porous cup cannot be stabilised against some bleeding host bone, then a conventional stand-alone cage must be used. In our center the cup-cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity. Acetabular bone loss and presence of pelvic discontinuity were assessed according to the Gross classification. Sixty-seven cup-cage procedures with an average follow-up of 74 months (range, 24–135 months; SD, 34.3) months were identified; 26 of 67 (39%) were Gross Type IV and 41 of 67 (61%) were Gross Type V (pelvic discontinuity). Failure was defined as revision surgery for any cause, including infection. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate with revision for any cause representing failure was 93% (95% confidence interval, 83.1–97.4), and the 10-year survival rate was 85% (95% CI, 67.2–93.8). The Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score improved significantly from a mean of 6 pre-operatively to 13 post-operatively (p < 0.001). Four cup-cage constructs had non-progressive radiological migration of the ischial flange and they remain stable

Pelvic discontinuity is defined as a separation of the ilium superiorly from the ischiopubic segment inferiorly. In 2018, the main management options include the following: 1) hemispheric acetabular component with posterior column plating, 2) cup-cage construct, 3) pelvic distraction, and 4) custom triflange construct. A hemispheric acetabular component with posterior column plating is a good option for acute pelvic discontinuities. However, healing potential is dependent on host's biology and characteristic of the discontinuity. The plate should include 3 screws above and 3 screws below the discontinuity with compression in between. In addition, the hemispherical acetabular component should have at least 50% host bone contact with 3–4 screws superior and 2–3 screws inferior to the discontinuity. On the other hand, a cup-cage construct can be used in any pelvic discontinuity. This includes a highly porous acetabular component placed on remaining host bone. Occasionally, highly porous metal augments are used to fill the remaining bone defects. A supplemental cage is placed over the acetabular component, spanning the discontinuity from the ilium to the ischium. A polyethylene liner is then cemented into place with antibiotic-loaded bone cement. Rarely, pelvic distraction may be needed. With this technique, pelvic stability is obtained via distraction of the discontinuity by elastic recoil of the pelvis and by fixing the superior hemipelvis and inferior hemipelvis to a highly porous metal cup or augment with screws, thereby unitizing the superior and inferior aspects of the pelvis. In essence, the cup acts as a segmental replacement of the acetabulum, with healing occurring to the cup or augment, resulting in a unitised hemipelvis. Frequently, the discontinuity itself does not achieve bony healing. Finally, custom triflange constructs are being utilised with increasing frequency. Triflange cups are custom-designed, porous and/or hydroxyapatite coated, titanium acetabular components with iliac, ischial, and pubic flanges. Rigid fixation promotes healing of the discontinuity and biologic fixation of the implant. It requires a CT scan, dedicated preoperative design, and fabrication costs

Revision surgery for pelvic discontinuity in the presence of bone loss is challenging. The cup-cage reconstruction option has become popular for the management of pelvic discontinuity in the recent years. The aim of this study was to review the clinical, radiological and patient reported outcomes with the use of cup cage construct for pelvic discontinuity at our institution. Twenty-seven patients (27 cup-cage reconstructions) were identified at median 6-year (minimum 2 year, maximum 10 years) follow up. Eight were female patients. The median age was 77 years [mean 72, range 37–90, SD 13.6]. There were 5 deaths and 2 were lost to follow up. Two patients were converted to excision arthroplasty; one for infection and one for failure of the construct. A further 3 patients required revision for instability but the cup cage construct was not revised (2 revisions of cemented cups to a constrained cup and one revision of proximal modular component of the femoral prosthesis). Revision of the cup cage construct was not necessary in any of these cases. We noted excellent pain relief (mean WOMAC pain 85.6) and good functional outcome (mean WOMAC function 78.2, mean UCLA 5, mean OHS 78.6). Patient satisfaction with regards pain relief; function and return to activities were noted to be excellent. Radiological changes were noted in further 4 patients (cup migration in one case; fracture of ischial spike in one case and breakage of the cage screws in 2 patients). No migration of the construct was noted in any of the cases. In conclusion, the cup cage construct is an excellent method of dealing with complex pelvic discontinuity. Our study suggests a low failure rate; high patient satisfaction and pain relief and moderate functional outcome at median 6 year follow up

Acetabular cages are necessary when an uncemented or cemented cup cannot be stabilised at the correct anatomic level. Impaction grafting with mesh for containment of bone graft is an alternative for some cases in centers that specialise in this technique. At our center we use three types of cage constructs –. (A) Conventional cage ± structural or morselised bone grafting. This construct is used where there is no significant bleeding host bone. This construct is susceptible to cage fatigue and fracture. This reconstruction is used in young patients where restoration of bone stock is important. (B) Conventional cage in combination with a porous augment where contact with bleeding host bone can be with the ilium and then by the use of cement that construct can be unified. The augment provides contact with bleeding host bone and if and when ingrowth occurs, the stress is taken off the cage. (C) Cup Cage Construct – in this construct there must be enough bleeding host bone to stabilise the ultra-porous cup which functions like a structural allograft supporting and eventually taking the stress off the cage. This construct is ideal for pelvic discontinuity with the ultra-porous cup, i.e., bridging and to some degree distracting the discontinuity. If, however, the ultra-porous cup cannot be stabilised against some bleeding host bone, then a conventional stand-alone cage must be used. In our center the cup cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity. Acetabular bone loss and presence of pelvic discontinuity were assessed according to the Gross classification. Sixty-seven cup-cage procedures with an average follow-up of 74 months (range, 24–135 months; SD, 34.3) months were identified; 26 of 67 (39%) were Gross Type IV and 41 of 67 (61%) were Gross Type V (pelvic discontinuity). Failure was defined as revision surgery for any cause, including infection. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate with revision for any cause representing failure was 93% (95% confidence interval, 83.1–97.4), and the 10-year survival rate was 85% (95% CI, 67.2–93.8). The Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score improved significantly from a mean of 6 pre-operatively to 13 post-operatively (p < 0.001). Four cup-cage constructs had non-progressive radiological migration of the ischial flange and they remain stable

In our center the cup cage reconstruction is our most common technique where a cage is used, especially if there is a pelvic discontinuity. Cup Cage Construct – in this construct there must be enough bleeding host bone to stabilise the ultraporous cup which functions like a structural allograft supporting and eventually taking the stress off the cage. This construct is ideal for pelvic discontinuity with the ultraporous cup, i.e., bridging and to some degree distracting the discontinuity. If, however, the ultra-porous cup cannot be stabilised against some bleeding host bone, then a conventional stand-alone cage must be used. Acetabular bone loss and presence of pelvic discontinuity were assessed according to the Gross classification. Sixty-seven cup cage procedures with an average follow-up of 74 months (range, 24–135 months; SD, 34.3 months) were identified; 26 of 67 (39%) were Gross Type IV and 41 of 67 (61%) were Gross Type V (pelvic discontinuity). Failure was defined as revision surgery for any cause, including infection. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate with revision for any cause representing failure was 93% (95% confidence interval, 83.1–97.4), and the 10-year survival rate was 85% (95% CI, 67.2–93.8). The Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score improved significantly from a mean of 6 pre-operatively to 13 post-operatively (p < 0.001). Four cup-cage constructs had non-progressive radiological migration of the ischial flange and they remain stable

Most acetabular defects can be treated with a cementless acetabular cup and screw fixation. However, larger defects with segmental bone loss and discontinuity often require reconstruction with augments, a cup-cage, or triflange component – which is a custom-made implant that has iliac, ischial, and pubic flanges to fit the outer table of the pelvis. The iliac flange fits on the ilium extending above the acetabulum. The ischial and pubic flanges are smaller than the iliac flange and usually permit screw fixation into the ischium and pubis. The custom triflange is designed based on a pre-operative CT scan of the pelvis with metal artifact reduction, which is used to generate a three-dimensional image of the pelvis and triflange component. The design of the triflange involves both the manufacturing engineer and surgeon to determine the most appropriate overall implant shape, screw fixation pattern, and cup location and orientation. A plastic model of the pelvis, and triflange implant can be made in addition to the triflange component to be implanted, in order to assist the surgeon during planning and placement of the final implant in the operating room. A wide surgical exposure is needed including identification of the sciatic nerve. Proximal dissection of the abductors above the sciatic notch to position the iliac flange can risk denervation of the abductor mechanism. Blood loss during this procedure can be excessive. Implant survivorship of 88 to 100% at 53-month follow-up has been reported. However, in a series of 19 patients with Paprosky type 3 defects, only 65% were considered successful. The custom triflange also tends to lateralise the hip center which may adversely affect hip mechanics. The use of a triflange component is indicated in cases with massive bone loss or discontinuity in which other reconstructive options are not considered suitable

Using the Mayo Clinic definition (>62mm in women and >66mm in men), the “jumbo acetabular component” is the most successful method for acetabular revisions now, even in hips with severe bone loss. There are numerous advantages: surface contact is maximised; weight-bearing is distributed over a large area of the pelvis; the need for bone grafting is reduced; and usually, hip center of rotation is restored. The possible disadvantages of jumbo cups include: may not restore bone stock; may ream away posterior column or wall; screw fixation required; the possibility of limited bone ingrowth and late failure; and a high rate of dislocation due to acetabular size:femoral head ratio. The techniques for a successful jumbo revision acetabular component involve: sizing-“reaming” of the acetabulum, careful impaction to achieve a “press-fit”, and multiple screw fixation. We recommend placement of an ischial screw in addition to dome and posterior column screw fixation. Cancellous allograft is used for any cavitary defects. The contra-indications for a jumbo acetabular cup are: pelvic dissociation; inability to get a rim fit; and inability to get screw fixation. If stability cannot be achieved with the jumbo cup alone, then use of augment(s), bulk allograft, or cup-cage construct should be considered. Using titanium fiber-metal mesh components, we reported the 15-year survival of 129 revisions. There was 3% revision for deep infection and only 3% revision for aseptic loosening. There were 13 reoperations for other reasons: wear, lysis, dislocation, femoral loosening, and femoral fracture fixation. The survival was 97.3% at 10 years, but it dropped to 82.8% at 15 years. Late loosening of this fiber metal mesh component is likely related to polyethylene wear and loss of fixation. Dislocation is the most common complication of jumbo acetabular revisions, approximately 10%, and these are multifactorial in etiology and often require revision. Based on our experience, we now recommend use of an acetabular component with an enhanced porous coating (tantalum), highly crosslinked polyethylene, and large femoral heads or dual mobility for all jumbo revisions

Revision of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is being performed with increasing frequency. However, outcomes of repeated revisions have been rarely reported in the literature, especially for severe defects. Cup revision can be a highly complex operation depending on the bone defect. In acetabular defects like Paprosky types 1 and 2 porous cementless cups fixed with screws give good results. Modern trabecular metal designs improve these good results. Allografts are useful for filling cavitary defects. In acetabular defects Paprosky types 3A and 3B, especially the use of trabecular metal cups, wedges, buttresses and cup-cage systems can produce good results. Difficult cases in combination with pelvic discontinuity require reconstruction of the acetabulum with acetabular plates or large cup-cages to solve these difficult problems. However, there is still no consensus regarding the best option for reconstructing hips with bone loss. Although the introduction of ultraporous metals has significantly increased the surgeon's ability to reconstruct severely compromised hips, there remain some that cannot be managed readily using cups, augments, or cages. In such situations custom acetabular components may be required. Individual implants represent yet another tool for the reconstructive surgeon. These devices can be helpful in situations of catastrophic bone loss. Ensuring long-term outcome, mechanical stability has a greater impact than restoring an ideal center of rotation. However, despite our consecutive case series there are no mid- to long-term results available so far. Re-revision for failed revision THA acetabular components is a technically very challenging condition

The Vancouver classification separates periprosthetic femur fractures after THA into three regions (A - trochanteric, B - around or just below the stem, and C - well below the stem), with fractures around or just below the stem further separated into those with a well-fixed (B1) or loose stem and good (B2) or poor (B3) bone stock. Trochanteric fractures may be associated with osteolysis and require treatment that addresses osteolysis as well as ORIF of displaced fractures. Fractures around a well-fixed stem can be treated with ORIF using cerclage or cable plating, while those around a loose stem require implant revision usually to a longer cementless tapered or distally porous coated cementless stem. Fractures around a loose stem with poor bone stock in which salvage of the proximal femur is not possible require replacement of the proximal femur with an allograft prosthetic composite or proximal femoral replacement. Fractures well below the stem can be treated with conventional plating methods. Periprosthetic acetabular fractures are rare and usually occur in the early post-operative period or late as a result of osteolysis or trauma. These can generally be separated into those with a stable acetabular component which can be treated non-operatively, and those with an unstable component often with discontinuity or posterior column instability which require complex acetabular reconstruction utilizing plating or revision to a cup-cage

Introduction. The mid- or long-term results of acetabular revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) in Korea are rare. The purpose of this study is to report the mid-term radiographic results (> 5 years) of acetabular revision THA with porous-coated cementless Trilogy. ®. cup (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA). Materials and Methods. Between 1999 and 2010, 77 patients (79 hips) had underwent acetabular revision THA with Trilogy. ®. cup. Eight patients (8 hips) were excluded due to death before 5-year follow-up, and 22 patients (23 hips) were excluded due to less than 5-year follow-up or follow-up loss. Forty-seven patients (48 hips) were included in our study. The mean age was 57.9 years (range, 36 to 76 years) and the mean follow-up was 9.8 years (range 5.0 to 16.2 years). The causes of revision were aseptic loosening in 40 hips, and septic loosening in 8 hips, respectively. Both acetabular and femoral revisions were performed in 14 hips and isolated acetabular revision was done in 34 hips. Preoperetive acetabular bone defect according to Paprosky classification was; 1 in type I, 6 in IIA, 11 in IIB, 9 in IIC, 15 in IIIA, and 6 in IIIB. Results. Radiolucent lines less than 2mm were found in 2 hips; one in zone I, another in zone I, II, III. Four hips (1 in type IIC, 1 in IIIA and 2 in IIIB) showed cup migration greater than 5 mm accompanying change of position greater than 5 degrees. However, these patients did not complain pain and showed fixation by secondary stabilization. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship with aseptic loosening as the end point at 10 years was 92.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.6 – 100) and at 15 years was 83.8 % (95% CI, 69.1 – 98.6), respectively. Non-recurrent dislocations occurred in 4 hips. There were no other complication such as sciatic nerve palsy, infection and deep vein thrombosis. Conclusion. Mid-term radiographic results (>5 years) of acetabular revision THA with porous-coated cementless Trilogy. ®. cup showed durable longevity. However, other options such as anti-protrusio cage or cup-cage construct should be considered in severe acetabular bone defect

Pelvic discontinuity with associated bone loss is a complex challenge acetabular revision surgery. Reconstruction by the use of ilio-ischial cages combined with trabecular metal acetabular components and morsellised bone (the component-cage technique) is a relatively new method of treatment. The trabecular cup provides a good environment for bone graft remodeling and eventual bone or fibrous ingrowth. The cage protects the trabecular metal cup until stabilisation occurs. The cage not only protects the cup but places the articulating center at the correct level. We reviewed a consecutive series of 32 cases of acetabular revision reconstructions with pelvic discontinuity who had been treated by the cup-cage technique. The mean follow-up was 38 months (24.0 to 68.0). Failure was defined as a migration of a component of >5mm. In 29 hips there was no clinical or radiological evidence of loosening at the last follow-up. The Harris hip scores improved significantly from 44.6 (sd 10.4) to 78.7 (sd 10.4) points (p<0.001). In three hips (11.5%) the construct migrated at one year after surgery. The complications included two cases of dislocations, one of infection and one of partial palsy of the peroneal nerve. Our findings indicated that the treatment of pelvic discontinuity by the component-cage construct is a reliable option

The custom triflange acetabular component has been advocated for severe acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity, cases in which a porous-coated hemisphere will not work. These are AAOS type III or IV defects, or alternatively classified as Paprosky 3B. Many have a pelvic discontinuity. A pre-operative CT of the pelvis is sent to the manufacturer who generates a one-to-one scale 3D model of the hemipelvis. The surgeon can review either a pdf file or an actual model. If the visualised defect cannot be treated with traditional methods then a triflanged component is created. The components have backside porous and hydroxyapatite coating. Initial rigid fixation is obtained with screw fixation to the ilium and ischium. Subsequent bone ingrowth can provide long term fixation. The goal is to span the acetabular defect and obtain fixation to the ilium and ischium with a third arm which rests on the pubis. Christie first reported on 67 hips (half with a discontinuity) with a mean follow-up of 53 months. No components were removed. There was an 8% reoperation for dislocation, 6% partial sciatic nerve palsy. 46% walked without support. Dennis reported 26 hips with a mean 54 month follow-up. Eighty-eight percent were considered successful. One implant was removed and left with a resection arthroplasty and 2 others had loose components but refused reoperation. Loosening of the ischial screws was a sign of failure in the three cases. Taunton reported 57 cases with a pelvic discontinuity treated with a triflange at mean follow-up of 65 months. Eighty-one percent had a stable component and a healed pelvic discontinuity. These authors also compared a custom triflange to a trabecular metal cup-cage construct finding similar implant costs of $12,500 and $11,250, respectively. All advocates of custom triflange acetabular components believe the results are similar or superior to other options in these very challenging cases at early follow-up. The primary disadvantage of the technique is the pre-operative time required to manufacture the device – typically 4–8 weeks

The custom triflange acetabular component has been advocated for severe acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity, cases in which a porous-coated hemisphere will not work. These are AAOS type III or IV defects, or alternatively classified as Paprosky 3B. Many have a pelvic discontinuity. A preoperative CT of the pelvis is sent to the manufacturer who generates a one-to-one scale 3D model of the hemipelvis. The surgeon can review either a pdf file or an actual model. If the visualised defect cannot be treated with traditional methods then a triflanged component is created. The components have backside porous and hydroxyapatite coating. Initial rigid fixation is obtained with screw fixation to the ilium and ischium. Subsequent bone ingrowth can provide long term fixation. The goal is to span the acetabular defect and obtain fixation to ilium and ischium with a third arm which rests on the pubis. Christie first reported on 67 hips (half with a discontinuity) with a mean follow-up of 53 months. No components were removed. There was an 8% reoperation for dislocation, 6% partial sciatic nerve palsy. 46% walked without support. Dennis reported 26 hips with a mean 54 month follow-up. 88% were considered successful. One implant was removed and left with a resection arthroplasty and 2 others had loose components but refused reoperation. Loosening of the ischial screws was a sign of failure in the three cases. Taunton reported 57 cases with a pelvic discontinuity treated with a triflange at mean follow-up of 65 months. 81% has a stable component and a healed pelvic discontinuity. These authors also compared a custom triflange to a trabecular metal cup-cage construct finding similar implant costs of $12,500 and $11,250, respectively. All advocates of custom triflange acetabular components believe the results are similar or superior to other options in these very challenging cases at early follow-up. The primary disadvantage of the technique is the preoperative time required to manufacture the device – typically 4–8 weeks

Major bone loss involving the acetabulum can be seen during revision THA due to component loosening, migration or osteolysis and can also occur as a sequela of infected THA. Uncemented highly porous ingrowth acetabular components can be used for the reconstruction of the vast majority of revision cases, especially where small to mid-sized segmental or cavitary defects are present which do not compromise stable mechanical support by the host bone for the cup after bone preparation is complete. A mechanically stable and near motionless interface between the host bone and the implant is required over the initial weeks post-surgery for bone ingrowth to occur, regardless of the type of porous surface employed. As bone deficiency increases, the challenge of achieving rigid cup fixation also increases, especially if the quality of the remaining host bone is compromised. A stepwise approach to enhanced fixation of the highly porous revision acetabular component is possible as follows:. Maximise Screw Fixation. Use of a limited number of screws in the dome only (as routinely occurs with a cluster hole design) is inadequate, except for primary arthroplasty cases or very routine revision cases with little or no bone loss and good bone quality. Otherwise an array of screws across the acetabular dome and continuing around the posterior column to base of the ischium is strongly recommended. This can help prevent early rocking of the cup into a more vertical position due to pivoting on dome screws used alone, via cup separation inferiorly in zone 3. A minimum of 3 or 4 screws in a wide array are suggested and use of 6 or more screws is not uncommon if bone quality is poor or defects are large. Cement the Acetabular Liner into the Shell. This creates a locking screw effect, which fixes the screw heads in position and prevents any screws from pivoting or backing out. Acetabular Augments (vs Structural Allograft). When critical segmental defects are present which by their location or size preclude stable support of the cup used alone, either a structural allograft or highly porous metal augment can provide critical focal support and enhance fixation. Highly porous metal augments were initially developed as a prosthetic allograft substitute in order to avoid the occasional graft resorption and loss of fixation sometimes seen with acetabular allograft use. Cup-Cage Construct. If one or more of the above strategies are used and fixation is deemed inadequate, it is possible to add a ½ or full acetabular cage “over the top” of the acetabular component before cementing a polyethylene liner in place. The full cup cage construct can be used for maximal fixation in cases of pelvic dissociation, alone or in combination with the distraction method as described by Paprosky. Use of a ½ cage is technically simpler and requires less exposure than a full cage, but still greatly enhances rigidity of fixation when transverse screws into the ilium are combined with standard screws in the cup including vertically into the dome. These techniques used in combination with highly porous tantalum implants have allowed durable fixation for the full range of reconstructive challenges and bone defects encountered. Newer 3-D printed titanium highly porous materials have recently been introduced by multiple manufacturers as a potential alternative that may be more cost effective, but these implants and materials will require clinical validation over the years ahead

Using the Mayo Clinic definition (>62mm in women and >66mm in men), the “jumbo acetabular component” is the most commonly used method for acetabular revisions now. There are numerous advantages: surface contact is maximised; weight-bearing is distributed over a large area of the pelvis; the need for bone grafting is reduced; and usually, hip center of rotation is restored. The possible disadvantages, or caveats, of jumbo cups include: may not restore bone stock; may ream away posterior column or wall; screw fixation required; the possibility of limited bone ingrowth and late failure; and a high rate of dislocation due to acetabular size:femoral head ratio. The techniques for a successful jumbo revision acetabular component involve: sizing-“reaming” of the acetabulum, careful impaction to achieve a “press-fit”, and multiple screw fixation. We recommend placement of an ischial screw in addition to dome and posterior column screw fixation. Cancellous allograft is used for any cavitary defects. The contraindications for a jumbo acetabular cup are: pelvic dissociation; inability to get a rim fit; inability to get screw fixation; and the presence of <50% living host bone. If stability cannot be achieved with the jumbo cup alone, then use of augment(s), bulk allograft, or cup-cage construct should be considered. Our results with the jumbo acetabular cups in revision arthroplasty have been reported. Using predominantly titanium fiber-metal mesh components, we reported the 15-year survival of 129 revisions. There was 3% revision for deep infection and only 3% revision for aseptic loosening. There were 13 reoperations for other reasons: wear, lysis, dislocation, femoral loosening, and femoral fracture fixation. The survival was 97.3% at 10 years, but it dropped to 82.8% at 15 years. Late loosening of this fiber metal mesh component is likely related to polyethylene wear and loss of fixation. Dislocation is the most common complication of jumbo acetabular revisions, approximately 10%, and these are multifactorial in etiology and often require revision. Based on our experience, we now recommend use of an acetabular component with an enhanced porous coating (tantalum), highly cross-linked polyethylene, and large femoral heads for all jumbo revisions

Pelvic discontinuity remains one of the most difficult reconstructive challenges during acetabular revision. Bony defects are extremely variable and remaining bone quality may be extremely poor. Careful pre-operative imaging with plain radiographs, oblique views, and CT scanning is recommended to improve understanding of the remaining bone stock. It is wise to have several options available intra-operatively including metal augments, jumbo cups, and cages. Various treatment options have been used with variable success. The principles of management include restoration of acetabular stability by “connecting” the ilium to the ischium, and by (hopefully) allowing some bony ingrowth into a porous surface to allow longer-term construct stability. Posterior column plates can be useful to stabilise the pelvis, and can supplement a trabecular metal uncemented acetabular component. Screws into the dome and into the ischium are used to span the discontinuity. More severe defects may require so-called “cup-cage” constructs or trabecular metal augmentation distraction techniques. The most severe defects typically necessitate custom triflange components. Triflange constructs allow broad based contact with remaining bone stock, and can span surprisingly large defects. Recent cost analyses have shown that custom triflange constructs are comparable to cup-cage-augment reconstructions. The results of these various solutions to manage pelvic discontinuity is extremely variable, however, it is fair to conclude that constructs that allow some bony ingrowth have demonstrated improved survivorship when compared to historical treatments such as bulk allografts protected by cages. The author prefers a posterior column plate and a trabecular metal cup for simple discontinuities, a cup-cage for larger defects, and a custom triflange for the most severe defects. Pre-operative imaging is critical to guide this decision-making, and careful attention to detail is important to obtain a stable, durable construct

Periprosthetic fractures in total hip arthroplasty lead to considerable morbidity in terms of loss of component fixation, loss of bone and subsequent functional deficits. We face an epidemic of periprosthetic fractures as the number of cementless implants inserted continues to rise and as the number of revisions continues to increase. The management of periprosthetic fractures requires careful preoperative imaging, planning and templating, the availability of the necessary expertise and equipment, and knowledge of the potential pitfalls so that these can be avoided both intra-operatively and in follow-up. There is a danger that these cases fall between the expertise of the trauma surgeon and that of the revision arthroplasty surgeon. The past decade has afforded us clear treatment algorithms based on fracture location, component fixation and the available bone stock. We still nevertheless face the enduring challenge of an elderly population with a high level of comorbidity who struggle to rehabilitate after such injuries. Perioperative optimisation is critical as we have seen prolonged hospital stays, high rates of systemic complications and a significant short term mortality in this cohort. We have also been presented with new difficult fracture patterns around anatomic cementless stems and in relation to tapered cemented and cementless stems. In many cases, fixation techniques are biomechanically and biologically doomed to fail and intramedullary stability, achieved through complex revision is required. The treatment of unstable peri-prosthetic femur fractures can be technically challenging due to the weak non-supportive bone stock. We have seen an increase in the frequency of Type B3 fractures that require complex reconstruction with modular tapers, interlocking implants and proximal femoral replacements. Our reconstructive practice has evolved; the aims of femoral reconstruction include rotational and axial stability of the stem, near normal hip biomechanics and preserving as much femoral bone as possible. The advent of modular prostheses that gain distal fixation but have proximal options has extended the scope of this type of fixation. We now favor modular tapered stems that afford us the opportunity to reconstruct such femora whilst attempting to preserve the proximal bone. In effect, distal cone or taper fixation provides the initial stability required for the procedure to be successful but the proximal modular implant subsequently load shares to decrease stress shielding, distribute stress more evenly through the femur and minimise the risk of stem fracture. Such systems provide the intraoperative versatility that these cases require. The use of interlocking stems with coated ingrowth surfaces offers a relatively appealing solution for some complex fractures and avoids the complications that would be associated with unstable fixation or resection of the proximal femur. Periprosthetic acetabular fractures are also increasingly recognised. This is in part due to the popularity of press fit components, which increase fracture risk both at the time of insertion and later due to medial wall stress shielding and pelvic osteolysis, and partly due to the increasing frequency of severe defects encountered at the time of revision surgery. These can present a very difficult reconstructive challenge and may require porous metal, cup-cage or custom reconstruction. Periprosthetic fractures continue to cause problems worldwide. The sequelae of periprosthetic fractures include the financial cost of fixation or revision surgery, the associated morbidity and mortality in an elderly frail population, the difficulty with mobilisation if the patient cannot fully weight bear and a poor functional outcome in a proportion of cases. The battle over which patients or fractures require fixation and which require revision surgery continues