Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical models of two frequently used techniques for reconstructing severe acetabular defects with pelvic discontinuity in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) – the Trabecular Metal Acetabular Revision System (TMARS) and custom triflange acetabular components (CTACs) – using virtual modelling. Methods. Pre- and postoperative CT scans from ten patients who underwent revision with the TMARS for a Paprosky IIIB acetabular defect with pelvic discontinuity were retrospectively collated. Computer models of a CTAC implant were designed from the preoperative CT scans of these patients. Computer models of the TMARS reconstruction were segmented from postoperative CT scans using a semi-automated method. The amount of bone removed, the implant-bone apposition that was achieved, and the restoration of the centre of rotation of the hip were compared between all the actual TMARS and the virtual CTAC implants. Results. The median amount of bone removed for TMARS reconstructions was significantly greater than for CTAC implants (9.07 cm. 3. (interquartile range (IQR) 5.86 to 21.42) vs 1.16 cm. 3. (IQR 0.42 to 3.53) (p = 0.004). There was no significant difference between the median overall implant-bone apposition between TMARS reconstructions and CTAC implants (54.8 cm. 2. (IQR 28.2 to 82.3) vs 56.6 cm. 2. (IQR 40.6 to 69.7) (p = 0.683). However, there was significantly more implant-bone apposition within the residual acetabulum (45.2 cm. 2. (IQR 28.2 to 72.4) vs 25.5 cm. 2. (IQR 12.8 to 44.1) (p = 0.001) and conversely significantly less apposition with the outer cortex of the pelvis for TMARS implants compared with CTAC reconstructions (0 cm. 2. (IQR 0 to 13.1) vs 23.2 cm. 2. (IQR 16.4 to 30.6) (p = 0.009). The mean centre of rotation of the hip of TMARS reconstructions differed by a mean of 11.1 mm (3 to 28) compared with CTAC implants. Conclusion. In using TMARS, more bone is removed, thus achieving more implant-bone apposition within the residual acetabular bone. In CTAC implants, the amount of bone removed is minimal, while the implant-bone apposition is more evenly distributed between the residual acetabulum and the outer cortex of the pelvis. The differences suggest that these implants used to treat pelvic discontinuity might achieve short- and long-term stability through different biomechanical mechanisms. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):74–81

Aims

The advent of trabecular metal (TM) augments has revolutionized the management of severe bone defects during acetabular reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) with the use of TM augments for reconstruction of Paprosky IIIA and IIIB defects.

The best treatment method of large acetabular bone defects at revision THR remains controversial. Some of the factors that need consideration are the amount of residual pelvic bone removed during revision; the contact area between the residual pelvic bone and the new implant; and the influence of the new acetabular construct on the centre of rotation of the hip. The purpose of this study was to compare these variables in two of the most used surgical techniques used to reconstruct severe acetabular defects: the trabecular metal acetabular revision system (TMARS) and a custom triflanged acetabular component (CTAC). Pre- and post-operative CT-scans were acquired from 11 patients who underwent revision THR with a TMARS construct for a Paprosky IIIB defect, 10 with pelvic discontinuity, at Royal Adelaide Hospital. The CT scans were used to generate computer models to virtually compare the TMARS and CTAC constructs using a semi-automated method. The TMARS construct model was calculated using postoperative CT scans while the CTAC constructs using the preoperative CT scans. The bone contact, centre of rotation, inclination, anteversion and reamed bone differences were calculated for both models. There was a significant difference in the mean amount of bone reamed for the TMARS reconstructions (15,997 mm. 3. ) compared to the CTAC reconstructions (2292 mm. 3. , p>0.01). There was no significant difference between overall implant bone contact (TMARS 5760mm. 2. vs CTAC 5447mm. 2. , p=0.63). However, there was a significant difference for both cancellous (TMARS 4966mm. 2. vs CTAC 2887mm. 2. , p=0.008) and cortical bone contact (TMARS 795mm. 2. vs CTAC 2560mm. 2. , p=0.001). There was no difference in inclination and anteversion achieved. TMARS constructs resulted on average in a centre of rotations 7.4mm more lateral and 4.0mm more posterior. Modelling of two different reconstructions of Paprosky IIIB defects demonstrated potential important differences between all variables investigated

Aims. Pelvic discontinuity is a challenging acetabular defect without a consensus on surgical management. Cup-cage reconstruction is an increasingly used treatment strategy. The present study evaluated implant survival, clinical and radiological outcomes, and complications associated with the cup-cage construct. Methods. We included 53 cup-cage construct (51 patients) implants used for hip revision procedures for pelvic discontinuity between January 2003 and January 2022 in this retrospective review. Mean age at surgery was 71.8 years (50.0 to 92.0; SD 10.3), 43/53 (81.1%) were female, and mean follow-up was 6.4 years (0.02 to 20.0; SD 4.6). Patients were implanted with a Trabecular Metal Revision Shell with either a ZCA cage (n = 12) or a TMARS cage (n = 40, all Zimmer Biomet). Pelvic discontinuity was diagnosed on preoperative radiographs and/or intraoperatively. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed, with failure defined as revision of the cup-cage reconstruction. Results. The five-year all-cause survival for cup-cage reconstruction was 73.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 61.4 to 85.4), while the ten- and 15-year survival was 63.7% (95% CI 46.8 to 80.6). Survival due to aseptic loosening was 93.4% (95% CI 86.2 to 100.0) at five, ten, and 15 years. The rate of revision for aseptic loosening, infection, and dislocation was 3/53 (5.7%), 7/53 (13.2%), and 6/53 (11.3%), respectively. The mean leg length discrepancy improved (p < 0.001) preoperatively from a mean of 18.2 mm (0 to 80; SD 15.8) to 7.0 mm (0 to 35; SD 9.8) at latest follow-up. The horizontal and vertical hip centres improved (p < 0.001) preoperatively from a mean of 9.2 cm (5.6 to 17.5; SD 2.3) to 10.1 cm (6.2 to 13.4; SD 2.1) and 9.3 cm (4.7 to 15.8; SD 2.5) to 8.0 cm (3.7 to 12.3; SD 1.7), respectively. Conclusion. Cup-cage reconstruction provides acceptable outcomes in the management of pelvic discontinuity. One in four constructs undergo revision within five years, most commonly for periprosthetic joint infection, dislocation, or aseptic loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):66–73

Pelvic discontinuity is a separation through the acetabulum with the ilium displacing superiorly and the ischium/pubis displacing inferiorly. This is a biomechanically challenging environment with a high rate of failure for standard acetabular components. The cup-cage reconstruction involves the use of a highly porous metal cup to achieve biological bone ingrowth on both sides of the pelvic discontinuity and an ilioischial cage to provide secure fixation across the discontinuity and bring the articulating hip center to the correct level. The purpose of this study was to report long term follow up of the use of the cup-cage to treat pelvic discontinuity. All hip revision procedures between January 2003 and January 2022 where a cup-cage was used for a hip with a pelvic discontinuity were included in this retrospective review. All patients received a Trabecular Metal Revision Shell with either a ZCA cage or TMARS cage (Zimmer-Biomet Inc.). Pelvic discontinuity was diagnosed on pre-operative radiographs and/or intraoperatively. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with failure defined as revision of the cup-cage reconstruction. Fifty-seven cup-cages in 56 patients were included with an average follow-up of 6.25 years (0.10 to 19.98 years). The average age of patients was 72.09 years (43 to 92 years) and 70.2% of patients were female. The five year Kaplan-Meier survival was 92.0% (95% CI 84.55 to 99.45) and the ten year survival was 80.5% (95% CI 58.35 to 102.65). There were 5 major complications that required revision of the cup-cage reconstruction (3 infections and 2 mechanical failures). There were 9 complications that required re-operation without revision of the cup-cage reconstruction (5 dislocations, 3 washouts for infection and one femoral revision for aseptic loosening). In our hands the cup-cage reconstruction has provided a reliable tool to address pelvic discontinuity with an acceptable complication rate

Aims

Several short- and mid-term studies have shown minimal liner wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) in total hip arthroplasty (THA), but the safety of using thinner HXLPE liners to maximize femoral head size remains uncertain. The objective of this study was to analyze clinical survival and radiological wear rates of patients with HXLPE liners, a 36 mm femoral head, and a small acetabular component with a minimum of ten years’ follow-up.

Aims

Tantalum (Ta) trabecular metal components are increasingly used to reconstruct major bone defects in revision arthroplasty surgery. It is known that some metals such as silver have antibacterial properties. Recent reports have raised the question regarding whether Ta components are protective against infection in revision surgery. This laboratory study aimed to establish whether Ta has intrinsic antibacterial properties against planktonic bacteria, or the ability to inhibit biofilm formation.