Aims. Custom-made partial pelvis replacements (PPRs) are increasingly used in the reconstruction of large acetabular defects and have mainly been designed using a triflange approach, requiring extensive soft-tissue dissection. The monoflange design, where primary intramedullary fixation within the ilium combined with a monoflange for rotational stability, was anticipated to overcome this obstacle. The aim of this study was to evaluate the design with regard to functional outcome, complications, and acetabular reconstruction. Methods. Between 2014 and 2023, 79 patients with a mean follow-up of 33 months (SD 22; 9 to 103) were included. Functional outcome was measured using the Harris Hip Score and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). PPR revisions were defined as an endpoint, and subgroups were analyzed to determine risk factors. Results. Implantation was possible in all cases with a 2D centre of rotation deviation of 10 mm (SD 5.8; 1 to 29). PPR revision was necessary in eight (10%) patients. HHS increased significantly from 33 to 72 postoperatively, with a mean increase of 39 points (p < 0.001). Postoperative EQ-5D score was 0.7 (SD 0.3; -0.3 to 1). Risk factor analysis showed significant revision rates for septic indications (p ≤ 0.001) as well as
The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks. The RHCC was developed with the help of a steering group and an invitation through the British Hip Society (BHS) to members to apply, forming an expert panel of 35. We ran a mixed-method modified Delphi process (three rounds of questionnaires and one virtual meeting). Round 1 consisted of identifying the factors that govern the decision-making and complexities, with weighting given to factors considered most important by experts. Participants were asked to identify classification systems where relevant. Rounds 2 and 3 focused on grouping each factor into H1, H2, or H3, creating a hierarchy of complexity. This was followed by a virtual meeting in an attempt to achieve consensus on the factors which had not achieved consensus in preceding rounds.Aims
Methods
