The custom triflange is a patient-specific implant for the treatment of severe bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Through a process of three-dimensional modelling and prototyping, a hydroxyapatite-coated component is created for acetabular reconstruction. There are seven level IV studies describing the clinical results of triflange components. The most common complications include dislocation and infection, although the rates of implant removal are low. Clinical results are promising given the challenging problem. We describe the design, manufacture and implantation process and review the clinical results, contrasting them to other methods of acetabular reconstruction in revision THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):68–72

Aims. To investigate the extent of bone development around the scaffold of custom triflange acetabular components (CTACs) over time. Methods. We performed a single-centre historical prospective cohort study, including all patients with revision THA using the aMace CTAC between January 2017 and March 2021. A total of 18 patients (18 CTACs) were included. Models of the hemipelvis and the scaffold component of the CTACs were created by segmentation of CT scans. The CT scans were performed immediately postoperatively and at least one year after surgery. The amount of bone in contact with the scaffold was analyzed at both times, and the difference was calculated. Results. The mean time between the implantation and the second CT scan was two years (1 to 5). The mean age of the patients during CTAC implantation was 75 years (60 to 92). The mean scaffold-bone contact area increased from 16% (SD 12.6) to 28% (SD 11.9). The mean scaffold-bone distance decreased from a mean of 6.5 mm (SD 2.0) to 5.5 mm (SD 1.6). None of the CTACs were revised or radiologically loose. Conclusion. There was a statistically significant increase of scaffold-bone contact area over time, but the total contact area of the scaffold in relation to the acetabular bone remained relatively low. As all implants remained well fixed, the question remains to what extend the scaffold contributes to the observed stability, in relation to the screws. A future design implication might be an elimination of the bulky scaffold component. This design modification would reduce production costs and may optimize the primary fit of the implant. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):359–364

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

Pelvic discontinuity represents a rare but challenging problem for orthopaedic surgeons. It is most commonly encountered during revision total hip replacement, but can also result from an iatrogentic acetabular fracture during hip replacement. The general principles in management of pelvic discontinuity include restoration of the continuity between the ilium and the ischium, typically with some form of plating. Bone grafting is frequently required to restore pelvic bone stock. The acetabular component is then impacted, typically using an uncemented, trabecular metal component. Fixation with multiple supplemental screws is performed. For larger defects, a so-called ‘cup–cage’ reconstruction, or a custom triflange implant may be required. Pre-operative CT scanning can greatly assist in planning and evaluating the remaining bone stock available for bony ingrowth. Generally, good results have been reported for constructs that restore stability to the pelvis and allow some form of biologic ingrowth. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:109–13

The advent of modular porous metal augments has ushered in a new form of treatment for acetabular bone loss. The function of an augment can be seen as reducing the size of a defect or reconstituting the anterosuperior/posteroinferior columns and/or allowing supplementary fixation. Depending on the function of the augment, the surgeon can decide on the sequence of introduction of the hemispherical shell, before or after the augment. Augments should always, however, be used with cement to form a unit with the acetabular component. Given their versatility, augments also allow the use of a hemispherical shell in a position that restores the centre of rotation and biomechanics of the hip. Progressive shedding or the appearance of metal debris is a particular finding with augments and, with other radiological signs of failure, should be recognized on serial radiographs. Mid- to long-term outcomes in studies reporting the use of augments with hemispherical shells in revision total hip arthroplasty have shown rates of survival of > 90%. However, a higher risk of failure has been reported when augments have been used for patients with chronic pelvic discontinuity.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):312–318.

Aims

The use of a porous metal shell supported by two augments with the ‘footing’ technique is one solution to manage Paprosky IIIB acetabular defects in revision total hip arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to assess the medium-term implant survival and radiological and clinical outcomes of this technique.

Aims

Dislocation remains a leading cause of failure following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). While dual-mobility (DM) bearings have been shown to mitigate this risk, options are limited when retaining or implanting an uncemented shell without modular DM options. In these circumstances, a monoblock DM cup, designed for cementing, can be cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell. The goal of this study was to describe the implant survival, complications, and radiological outcomes of this construct.

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.

Aims

Recurrent infection following two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication. The purpose of this study was to report the survival of repeat two-stage revision hip arthroplasty, describe complications, and identify risk factors for failure.

Aims

Severe acetabular bone loss and pelvic discontinuity (PD) present particular challenges in revision total hip arthroplasty. To deal with such complex situations, cup-cage reconstruction has emerged as an option for treating this situation. We aimed to examine our success in using this technique for these anatomical problems.

Aims

The aim of this study was to examine the results of the acetabular distraction technique in achieving implantation of a stable construct, obtaining biological fixation, and producing healing of chronic pelvic discontinuity at revision total hip arthroplasty.

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.

Aims

The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the minimum five-year outcome of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) using the Kerboull acetabular reinforcement device (KARD) in patients with Paprosky type III acetabular defects and destruction of the inferior margin of the acetabulum.

Aim

Until now, there has been no consensus as to whether stemmed acetabular components are appropriate for use in patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) who have major acetabular defects or pelvic discontinuity. We wished to address this deficiency in the literature.

Aims

It may not be possible to undertake revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the presence of massive loss of acetabular bone stock using standard cementless hemispherical acetabular components and metal augments, as satisfactory stability cannot always be achieved. We aimed to study the outcome using a reconstruction cage and a porous metal augment in these patients.

We investigated the early results of modular porous metal components used in 23 acetabular reconstructions associated with major bone loss. The series included seven men and 15 women with a mean age of 67 years (38 to 81), who had undergone a mean of two previous revisions (1 to 7).

Based on Paprosky’s classification, there were 17 type 3A and six type 3B defects. Pelvic discontinuity was noted in one case. Augments were used in 21 hips to support the shell and an acetabular component-cage construct was implanted in one case. At a mean follow-up of 41 months (24 to 62), 22 components remained well fixed. Two patients required rerevision of the liners for prosthetic joint instability. Clinically, the mean Harris Hip Score improved from 43.0 pre-operatively (14 to 86) to 75.7 post-operatively (53 to 100). The mean pre-operative Merle d’Aubigné score was 8.2 (3 to 15) and improved to a mean of 13.7 (11 to 18) post-operatively.

These short-term results suggest that modular porous metal components are a viable option in the reconstruction of Paprosky type 3 acetabular defects. More data are needed to determine whether the system yields greater long-term success than more traditional methods, such as reconstruction cages and structural allografts.