Aims. Custom triflange acetabular components (CTACs) play an important role in reconstructive orthopaedic surgery, particularly in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and pelvic tumour resection procedures. Accurate CTAC positioning is essential to successful surgical outcomes. While prior studies have explored CTAC positioning in rTHA, research focusing on tumour cases and implant flange positioning precision remains limited. Additionally, the impact of intraoperative navigation on positioning accuracy warrants further investigation. This study assesses CTAC positioning accuracy in tumour resection and rTHA cases, focusing on the differences between preoperative planning and postoperative implant positions. Methods. A multicentre observational cohort study in Australia between February 2017 and March 2021 included consecutive patients undergoing acetabular reconstruction with CTACs in rTHA (Paprosky 3A/3B defects) or tumour resection (including Enneking P2 peri-acetabular area). Of 103 eligible patients (104 hips), 34 patients (35 hips) were analyzed. Results. CTAC positioning was generally accurate, with minor deviations in cup inclination (mean 2.7°; SD 2.84°), anteversion (mean 3.6°; SD 5.04°), and rotation (mean 2.1°; SD 2.47°). Deviation of the hip centre of rotation (COR) showed a mean vector length of 5.9 mm (SD 7.24). Flange positions showed small deviations, with the ischial flange exhibiting the largest deviation (mean vector length of 7.0 mm; SD 8.65). Overall, 83% of the implants were accurately positioned, with 17% exceeding malpositioning thresholds. CTACs used in tumour resections exhibited higher positioning accuracy than rTHA cases, with significant differences in inclination (1.5° for tumour vs 3.4° for rTHA) and rotation (1.3° for tumour vs 2.4° for rTHA). The use of intraoperative navigation appeared to enhance positioning accuracy, but this did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion. This study demonstrates favourable CTAC positioning accuracy, with potential for improved accuracy through intraoperative navigation. Further research is needed to understand the implications of positioning accuracy on implant performance and long-term survival. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):260–268

Aims

Modular dual mobility (DM) prostheses in which a cobalt-chromium liner is inserted into a titanium acetabular shell (vs a monoblock acetabular component) have the advantage of allowing supplementary screw fixation, but the potential for corrosion between the liner and acetabulum has raised concerns. While DM prostheses have shown improved stability in patients deemed ‘high-risk’ for dislocation undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA), their performance in young, active patients has not been reported. This study’s purpose was to assess clinical outcomes, metal ion levels, and periprosthetic femoral bone mineral density (BMD) in young, active patients receiving a modular DM acetabulum and recently introduced titanium, proximally coated, tapered femoral stem design.

We report the use of an allograft prosthetic composite for reconstruction of the skeletal defect in complex revision total hip replacement for severe proximal femoral bone loss. Between 1986 and 1999, 72 patients (20 men, 52 women) with a mean age of 59.9 years (38 to 78) underwent reconstruction using this technique.

At a mean follow-up of 12 years (8 to 20) 57 patients were alive, 14 had died and one was lost to follow-up. Further revision was performed in 19 hips at a mean of 44.5 months (11 to 153) post-operatively. Causes of failure were aseptic loosening in four, allograft resorption in three, allograft nonunion in two, allograft fracture in four, fracture of the stem in one, and deep infection in five. The survivorship of the allograft-prosthesis composite at ten years was 69.0% (95% confidence interval 67.7 to 70.3) with 26 patients remaining at risk. Survivorship was statistically significantly affected by the severity of the pre-operative bone loss (Paprosky type IV; p = 0.019), the number of previous hip revisions exceeding two (p = 0.047), and the length of the allograft used (p = 0.005).