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 femoral defect size (p = 0.001). Conclusion. Since large acetabular defects are being treated surgically more often, custom-made PPR should be integrated as an option in treatment algorithms. Monoflange PPR, with primary iliac fixation, offers a viable treatment option for Paprosky III defects with promising functional results, while requiring less soft-tissue exposure and allowing immediate full weightbearing. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):688–696

Aims

Two-stage exchange revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed in case of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been considered for many years as being the gold standard for the treatment of chronic infection. However, over the past decade, there have been concerns about its safety and its effectiveness. The purposes of our study were to investigate our practice, collecting the overall spacer complications, and then to analyze their risk factors.