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. 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.Aims
Methods
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:
To investigate the extent of bone development around the scaffold of custom triflange acetabular components (CTACs) over time. 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.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to examine the implant accuracy of custom-made partial pelvis replacements (PPRs) in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Custom-made implants offer an option to achieve a reconstruction in cases with severe acetabular bone loss. By analyzing implant deviation in CT and radiograph imaging and correlating early clinical complications, we aimed to optimize the usage of custom-made implants. A consecutive series of 45 (2014 to 2019) PPRs for Paprosky III defects at rTHA were analyzed comparing the preoperative planning CT scans used to manufacture the implants with postoperative CT scans and radiographs. The anteversion (AV), inclination (IC), deviation from the preoperatively planned implant position, and deviation of the centre of rotation (COR) were explored. Early postoperative complications were recorded, and factors for malpositioning were sought. The mean follow-up was 30 months (SD 19; 6 to 74), with four patients lost to follow-up.Aims
Methods
We evaluated the accuracy with which a custom-made
acetabular component could be positioned at revision arthroplasty
of the hip in patients with a Paprosky type 3 acetabular defect. A total of 16 patients with a Paprosky type 3 defect underwent
revision surgery using a custom-made trabecular titanium implant.
There were four men and 12 women with a median age of 67 years (48
to 79). The planned inclination (INCL), anteversion (AV), rotation
and centre of rotation (COR) of the implant were compared with the post-operative
position using CT scans. A total of seven implants were malpositioned in one or more parameters:
one with respect to INCL, three with respect to AV, four with respect
to rotation and five with respect to the COR. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study in which
CT data acquired for the pre-operative planning of a custom-made
revision acetabular implant have been compared with CT data on the
post-operative position. The results are encouraging. Cite this article:
