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

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 use of ilioischial cage reconstruction for pelvic discontinuity has been replaced by the Trabecular Metal (Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana) cup-cage technique in our institution, due to the unsatisfactory outcome of using a cage alone in this situation. We report the outcome of 26 pelvic discontinuities in 24 patients (20 women and four men, mean age 65 years (44 to 84)) treated by the cup-cage technique at a mean follow-up of 82 months (12 to 113) and compared them with a series of 19 pelvic discontinuities in 19 patients (18 women and one man, mean age 70 years (42 to 86)) treated with a cage at a mean follow-up of 69 months (1 to 170). The clinical and radiological outcomes as well as the survivorship of the groups were compared. In all, four of the cup-cage group (15%) and 13 (68%) of the cage group failed due to septic or aseptic loosening. The seven-year survivorship was 87.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71 to 103) for the cup-cage group and 49.9% (95% CI 15 to 84) for the cage-alone group (p = 0.009). There were four major complications in the cup-cage group and nine in the cage group. Radiological union of the discontinuity was found in all successful cases in the cup-cage group and three of the successful cage cases. Three hips in the cup-cage group developed early radiological migration of the components, which stabilised with a successful outcome. Cup-cage reconstruction is a reliable technique for treating pelvic discontinuity in mid-term follow-up and is preferred to ilioischial cage reconstruction. If the continuity of the bone graft at the discontinuity site is not disrupted, early migration of the components does not necessarily result in failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:195–200

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. Patients and Methods. We undertook a retrospective, single-centre series of 35 hips in 34 patients (seven male, 27 female) treated with a cup-cage construct using a trabecular metal shell in conjunction with a titanium cage, for severe acetabular bone loss between 2011 and 2015. The mean age at the time of surgery was 70 years (42 to 85) and all patients had an acetabular defect graded as Paprosky Type 2C through to 3B, with 24 hips (69%) having PD. The mean follow-up was 47 months (25 to 84). Results. The cumulative five-year survivorship of the implant with revision for any cause was 89% (95% confidence interval (CI) 72 to 96) with eight hips at risk. No revision was required for aseptic loosening; however, one patient with one hip (3%) required removal of the ischial flange of the cage due to sciatic nerve irritation. Two patients (6%; two hips) suffered from hip dislocation, whereas one patient (one hip) required revision surgery with cement fixation of a dual-mobility acetababular component into a well-fixed cup-cage construct. Two patients (6%; two hips) developed periprosthetic infection. One patient was successfully controlled with a two-stage revision surgery, while the other patient underwent excision arthroplasty due to severe medical comorbidities. For the whole series, the Harris Hip Score significantly improved from a mean of 30 (15 to 51) preoperatively to 71 (40 to 89) at the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Our findings suggest that cup-cage reconstruction is a viable option for major segmental bone defects involving the posterior column and PD. It allows adequate restoration of the acetabulum centre with generally good stability and satisfactory postoperative function. Instability and infection remain drawbacks in these challenging revision cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1442–48

Pelvic discontinuity with associated bone loss is a complex challenge in acetabular revision surgery. Reconstruction using ilio-ischial cages combined with trabecular metal acetabular components and morsellised bone (the component-cage technique) is a relatively new method of treatment. We reviewed a consecutive series of 26 cases of acetabular revision reconstructions in 24 patients with pelvic discontinuity who had been treated by the component-cage technique. The mean follow-up was 44.6 months (24 to 68). Failure was defined as migration of a component of > 5 mm. In 23 hips (88.5%) there was no clinical or radiological evidence of loosening at the last follow-up. The mean Harris hip score improved significantly from 46.6 points (29.5 to 68.5) to 76.6 points (55.5 to 92.0) at two years (p < 0.001). In three hips (11.5%) the construct had migrated at one year after operation. The complications included two dislocations, one infection and one partial palsy of the peroneal nerve. Our findings indicate that treatment of pelvic discontinuity using the component-cage construct is a reliable option

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. Patients and Methods. We identified 32 patients treated between 2006 and 2013 who underwent acetabular revision for a chronic pelvic discontinuity using acetabular distraction, and who were radiographically evaluated at a mean of 62 months (25 to 160). Of these patients, 28 (87.5%) were female. The mean age at the time of revision was 67 years (44 to 86). The patients represented a continuous series drawn from two institutions that adhered to an identical operative technique. Results. Of the 32 patients, one patient required a revision for aseptic loosening, two patients had evidence of radiographic loosening but were not revised, and three patients had migration of the acetabular component into a more stable configuration. Radiographically, 22 (69%) of the cohort demonstrated healing of the discontinuity. The Kaplan–Meier construct survivorship was 83.3% when using revision for aseptic acetabular loosening as an endpoint. At the time when one patient failed due to aseptic loosening (at 7.4 years), there were a total of seven patients with a follow-up of seven years or longer who were at risk of failure. Conclusion. The acetabular distraction technique demonstrates encouraging radiographic outcomes, with healing of the discontinuity in over two-thirds of our series. This surgical technique permits biological fixation and intraoperative customization of the construct to be implanted based on the pattern of the bone loss identified following component removal. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:909–14

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. Patients and Methods. We carried out a retrospective study of 35 patients (six men and 29 women) with a mean age of 68 years (37 to 87), with major acetabular defects who underwent revision THA between 2000 and 2012. Results. At a mean follow-up of 63 months (24 to 141), a total of 15 patients (43%) had required at least one further operation. Six implants (17%) loosened aseptically, four (11%) were further revised for infection and two (6%) for technical failure. By taking revision for any reason as the endpoint, the rate of survival of the implant was 61% after five years; by taking revision for aseptic loosening as the end point, it was 78%. The cumulative five-year survival for aseptic loosening was 94% in patients without pelvic discontinuity, and 56% in those with pelvic discontinuity. Conclusion. These results indicate a significantly worse survival in patients with pelvic discontinuity (p = 0.020) and we advise caution in the use of the pedestal component in patients with major acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity who require revision THA. As a result of these findings we have stopped using this implant and prefer to use particulate bone grafts protected with an anti-protrusion cage and posterior column plate fixation, if necessary. Take home message: Based on these poor results, we advise caution if using the pedestal component in patients with major acetabular defects with the presence of a pelvic discontinuity. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:772–9

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. Methods. We reviewed a consecutive series of Paprosky type III acetabular defects treated according to a reconstruction algorithm. IIIA defects were planned to use a superior augment and hemispherical acetabular component. IIIB defects were planned to receive either a hemispherical acetabular component plus augments, a cup-cage reconstruction, or a custom-made implant. We used national digital health records and registry reports to identify any reoperation or re-revision procedure and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) for patient-reported outcomes. Implant survival was determined via Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results. A total of 105 procedures were carried out in 100 patients (five bilateral) with a mean age of 73 years (42 to 94). In the IIIA defects treated, 72.0% (36 of 50) required a porous metal augment; the remaining 14 patients were treated with a hemispherical acetabular component alone. In the IIIB defects, 63.6% (35 of 55) underwent reconstruction as planned with 20 patients who actually required a hemispherical acetabular component alone. At mean follow-up of 7.6 years, survival was 94.3% (95% confidence interval 97.4 to 88.1) for all-cause revision and the overall dislocation rate was 3.8% (4 of 105). There was no difference observed in survival between type IIIA and type IIIB defects and whether a hemispherical implant alone was used for the reconstruction or not. The mean gain in OHS was 16 points. Custom-made implants were only used in six cases, in patients with either a mega-defect in which the anteroposterior diameter > 80 mm, complex pelvic discontinuity, and massive bone loss in a small pelvis. Conclusion. Our findings suggest that a reconstruction algorithm can provide a successful approach to reconstruction in major acetabular bone loss. The use of custom implants has been defined in this series and accounts for < 5% of cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):47–53

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.

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 trabecular metal (TM) shells supported by augments has provided good mid-term results after revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with a bony defect of the acetabulum. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term implant survivorship and radiological and clinical outcomes after acetabular revision using this technique. Patients and Methods. Between 2006 and 2010, 60 patients (62 hips) underwent acetabular revision using a combination of a TM shell and augment. A total of 51 patients (53 hips) had complete follow-up at a minimum of seven years and were included in the study. Of these patients, 15 were men (29.4%) and 36 were women (70.6%). Their mean age at the time of revision THA was 64.6 years (28 to 85). Three patients (5.2%) had a Paprosky IIA defect, 13 (24.5%) had a type IIB defect, six (11.3%) had a type IIC defect, 22 (41.5%) had a type IIIA defect, and nine (17%) had a type IIIB defect. Five patients (9.4%) also had pelvic discontinuity. Results. The overall survival of the acetabular component at a mean of ten years postoperatively was 92.5%. Three hips (5.6%) required further revision due to aseptic loosening, and one (1.9%) required revision for infection. Three hips with aseptic loosening failed, due to insufficient screw fixation of the shell in two and pelvic discontinuity in one. The mean Harris Hip Score improved significantly from 55 (35 to 68) preoperatively to 81 points (68 to 99) at the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). Conclusion. The reconstruction of acetabular defects with TM shells and augments showed excellent long-term results. Supplementary screw fixation of the shell should be performed in every patient. Alternative techniques should be considered to address pelvic disconinuity. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:311–316

Acetabular bone loss is a challenging problem facing the revision total hip replacement surgeon. Reconstruction of the acetabulum depends on the presence of anterosuperior and posteroinferior pelvic column support for component fixation and stability. The Paprosky classification is most commonly used when determining the location and degree of acetabular bone loss. Augments serve the function of either providing primary construct stability or supplementary fixation. . When a pelvic discontinuity is encountered we advocate the use of an acetabular distraction technique with a jumbo cup and modular porous metal acetabular augments for the treatment of severe acetabular bone loss and associated chronic pelvic discontinuity. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):36–42

A pelvic discontinuity occurs when the superior and inferior parts of the hemi-pelvis are no longer connected, which is difficult to manage when associated with a failed total hip replacement. Chronic pelvic discontinuity is found in 0.9% to 2.1% of hip revision cases with risk factors including severe pelvic bone loss, female gender, prior pelvic radiation and rheumatoid arthritis. Common treatment options include: pelvic plating with allograft, cage reconstruction, custom triflange implants, and porous tantalum implants with modular augments. The optimal technique is dependent upon the degree of the discontinuity, the amount of available bone stock and the likelihood of achieving stable healing between the two segments. A method of treating pelvic discontinuity using porous tantalum components with a distraction technique that achieves both initial stability and subsequent long-term biological fixation is described. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):73–7

We retrospectively reviewed 44 consecutive patients (50 hips) who underwent acetabular re-revision after a failed previous revision that had been performed using structural or morcellised allograft bone, with a cage or ring for uncontained defects. Of the 50 previous revisions, 41 cages and nine rings were used with allografts for 14 minor-column and 36 major-column defects. We routinely assessed the size of the acetabular bone defect at the time of revision and re-revision surgery. This allowed us to assess whether host bone stock was restored. We also assessed the outcome of re-revision surgery in these circumstances by means of radiological characteristics, rates of failure and modes of failure. We subsequently investigated the factors that may affect the potential for the restoration of bone stock and the durability of the re-revision reconstruction using multivariate analysis. At the time of re-revision, there were ten host acetabula with no significant defects, 14 with contained defects, nine with minor-column, seven with major-column defects and ten with pelvic discontinuity. When bone defects at re-revision were compared with those at the previous revision, there was restoration of bone stock in 31 hips, deterioration of bone stock in nine and remained unchanged in ten. This was a significant improvement (p <  0.001). Morselised allografting at the index revision was not associated with the restoration of bone stock. . In 17 hips (34%), re-revision was possible using a simple acetabular component without allograft, augments, rings or cages. There were 47 patients with a mean follow-up of 70 months (6 to 146) available for survival analysis. Within this group, the successful cases had a minimum follow-up of two years after re-revision. There were 22 clinical or radiological failures (46.7%), 18 of which were due to aseptic loosening. The five and ten year Kaplan–Meier survival rate was 75% (95% CI, 60 to 86) and 56% (95% CI, 40 to 70) respectively with aseptic loosening as the endpoint. The rate of aseptic loosening was higher for hips with pelvic discontinuity (p = 0.049) and less when the allograft had been in place for longer periods (p = 0.040). . The use of a cage or ring over structural allograft bone for massive uncontained defects in acetabular revision can restore host bone stock and facilitate subsequent re-revision surgery to a certain extent. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:319–24

Aims. Few reconstructive techniques are available for patients requiring complex acetabular revisions such as those involving Paprosky type 2C, 3A and 3B deficiencies and pelvic discontinuity. Our aim was to describe the development of the patient specific Triflange acetabular component for use in these patients, the surgical technique and mid-term results. We include a description of the pre-operative CT scanning, the construction of a model, operative planning, and surgical technique. All implants were coated with porous plasma spray and hydroxyapatite if desired. Patients and Methods. A multicentre, retrospective review of 95 complex acetabular reconstructions in 94 patients was performed. A total of 61 (64.2%) were female. The mean age of the patients was 66 (38 to 85). The mean body mass index was 29 kg/m. 2. (18 to 51). Outcome was reported using the Harris Hip Score (HHS), complications, failures and survival. Results. The mean follow-up was 3.5 years (1 to 11). The mean HHS improved from 46 (15 to 90) pre-operatively to 75 (14 to 100). A total of 21 hips (22%) had at least one complication with some having more than one; including dislocation (6%), infection (6%), and femoral complications (2%). The implant was subsequently removed in five hips (5%), only one for suspected aseptic loosening. Conclusion. The Triflange patient specific acetabular component provides predictable fixation with complication rates which are similar to those of other techniques. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B(1 Supple A):50–4

An uncemented hemispherical acetabular component is the mainstay of acetabular revision and gives excellent long-term results. Occasionally, the degree of acetabular bone loss means that a hemispherical component will be unstable when sited in the correct anatomical location or there is minimal bleeding host bone left for biological fixation. On these occasions an alternative method of reconstruction has to be used. A major column structural allograft has been shown to restore the deficient bone stock to some degree, but it needs to be off-loaded with a reconstruction cage to prevent collapse of the graft. The use of porous metal augments is a promising method of overcoming some of the problems associated with structural allograft. If the defect is large, the augment needs to be protected by a cage to allow ingrowth to occur. Cup-cage reconstruction is an effective method of treating chronic pelvic discontinuity and large contained or uncontained bone defects. . This paper presents the indications, surgical techniques and outcomes of various methods which use acetabular reconstruction cages for revision total hip arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):73–7

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. Patients and Methods. A total of 22 acetabular revisions in 19 patients were performed using a combination of a reconstruction cage and porous metal augments. The augments were used in place of structural allografts. The mean age of the patients at the time of surgery was 70 years (27 to 85) and the mean follow-up was 39 months (27 to 58). The mean number of previous THAs was 1.9 (1 to 3). All patients had segmental defects involving more than 50% of the acetabulum and seven hips had an associated pelvic discontinuity. . Results. Three failures were observed in two hips, both of which had undergone a previous resection of a tumour affecting the acetabulum. Other complications included a late arterial injury, a sciatic nerve palsy, a dislocation treated with a femoral revision, a deep infection treated with irrigation and debridement and a fracture of the greater trochanter treated conservatively. The mean Oxford Hip Score significantly increased from 13.9 (2 to 23) to 28.7 (13 to 38) (p < 0.00001). The mean vertical distance between the centre of rotation of the hip and its normal location decreased from 30 mm to 10 mm. Conclusions. Acceptable early survivorship can be achieved using this novel technique, but it may be unsuitable for use in patients who have previously undergone the resection of a tumour involving the acetabulum. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:607–13

We investigated the detailed anatomy of the gluteus maximus, gluteus medius and gluteus minimus and their neurovascular supply in 22 hips in 11 embalmed adult Caucasian human cadavers. This led to the development of a surgical technique for an extended posterior approach to the hip and pelvis that exposes the supra-acetabular ilium and preserves the glutei during revision hip surgery. Proximal to distal mobilisation of the gluteus medius from the posterior gluteal line permits exposure and mobilisation of the superior gluteal neurovascular bundle between the sciatic notch and the entrance to the gluteus medius, enabling a wider exposure of the supra-acetabular ilium. This technique was subsequently used in nine patients undergoing revision total hip replacement involving the reconstruction of nine Paprosky 3B acetabular defects, five of which had pelvic discontinuity. Intra-operative electromyography showed that the innervation of the gluteal muscles was not affected by surgery. Clinical follow-up demonstrated good hip abduction function in all patients. These results were compared with those of a matched cohort treated through a Kocher–Langenbeck approach. Our modified approach maximises the exposure of the ilium above the sciatic notch while protecting the gluteal muscles and their neurovascular bundle. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:48–53

Trabecular metal (TM) augments are a relatively new option for reconstructing segmental bone loss during acetabular revision. We studied 34 failed hip replacements in 34 patients that were revised between October 2003 and March 2010 using a TM acetabular shell and one or two augments. The mean age of the patients at the time of surgery was 69.3 years (46 to 86) and the mean follow-up was 64.5 months (27 to 107). In all, 18 patients had a minor column defect, 14 had a major column defect, and two were associated with pelvic discontinuity. The hip centre of rotation was restored in 27 patients (79.4%). The Oxford hip score increased from a mean of 15.4 points (6 to 25) before revision to a mean of 37.7 (29 to 47) at the final follow-up. There were three aseptic loosenings of the construct, two of them in the patients with pelvic discontinuity. One septic loosening also occurred in a patient who had previously had an infected hip replacement. The augments remained stable in two of the failed hips. Whenever there was a loose acetabular component in contact with a stable augment, progressive metal debris shedding was evident on the serial radiographs. Complications included another deep infection treated without revision surgery. Good clinical and radiological results can be expected for bone-deficient acetabula treated by a TM cup and augment, but for pelvic discontinuities this might not be a reliable option. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:166–72