We used a biodegradable mesh to convert an acetabular defect into a contained defect in six patients at total hip replacement. Their mean age was 61 years (46 to 69). The mean follow-up was 32 months (19 to 50). Before clinical use, the strength retention and hydrolytic in vitro degradation properties of the implants were studied in the laboratory over a two-year period. A successful clinical outcome was determined by the radiological findings and the Harris hip score.

All the patients had a satisfactory outcome and no mechanical failures or other complications were observed. No protrusion of any of the impacted grafts was observed beyond the mesh. According to our preliminary laboratory and clinical results the biodegradable mesh is suitable for augmenting uncontained acetabular defects in which the primary stability of the implanted acetabular component is provided by the host bone. In the case of defects of the acetabular floor this new application provides a safe method of preventing graft material from protruding excessively into the pelvis and the mesh seems to tolerate bone-impaction grafting in selected patients with primary and revision total hip replacement.

Impacted bone allograft is often used in revision joint replacement. Hydroxyapatite granules have been suggested as a substitute or to enhance morcellised bone allograft. We hypothesised that adding osteogenic protein-1 to a composite of bone allograft and non-resorbable hydroxyapatite granules (ProOsteon) would improve the incorporation of bone and implant fixation. We also compared the response to using ProOsteon alone against bone allograft used in isolation. We implanted two non-weight-bearing hydroxyapatite-coated implants into each proximal humerus of six dogs, with each implant surrounded by a concentric 3 mm gap. These gaps were randomly allocated to four different procedures in each dog: 1) bone allograft used on its own; 2) ProOsteon used on its own; 3) allograft and ProOsteon used together; or 4) allograft and ProOsteon with the addition of osteogenic protein-1.

After three weeks osteogenic protein-1 increased bone formation and the energy absorption of implants grafted with allograft and ProOsteon. A composite of allograft, ProOsteon and osteogenic protein-1 was comparable, but not superior to, allograft used on its own.

ProOsteon alone cannot be recommended as a substitute for allograft around non-cemented implants, but should be used to extend the volume of the graft, preferably with the addition of a growth factor.