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. Orthopaedic surgery requires grafts with sufficient mechanical strength. For this purpose, decellularized tissue is an available option that lacks the complications of autologous tissue. However, it is not widely used in orthopaedic surgeries. This study investigated clinical trials of the use of decellularized tissue grafts in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. Using the ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG) and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) databases, we comprehensively surveyed clinical trials of decellularized tissue use in orthopaedic surgeries registered before 1 September 2022. We evaluated the clinical results, tissue processing methods, and commercial availability of the identified products using academic literature databases and manufacturers’ websites. Results. We initially identified 4,402 clinical trials, 27 of which were eligible for inclusion and analysis, including nine shoulder surgery trials, eight knee surgery trials, two ankle surgery trials, two hand surgery trials, and six peripheral nerve graft trials. Nine of the trials were completed. We identified only one product that will be commercially available for use in knee surgery with significant mechanical load resistance. Peracetic acid and gamma irradiation were frequently used for sterilization. Conclusion. Despite the demand for decellularized tissue, few decellularized tissue products are currently commercially available, particularly for the knee joint. To be viable in orthopaedic surgery, decellularized tissue must exhibit biocompatibility and mechanical strength, and these requirements are challenging for the clinical application of decellularized tissue. However, the variety of available decellularized products has recently increased. Therefore, decellularized grafts may become a promising option in orthopaedic surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(3):179–188