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. 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.Aims
Methods
Reconstruction of the acetabulum after resection of a periacetabular
malignancy is technically challenging and many different techniques
have been used with varying success. Our aim was to prepare a systematic
review of the literature dealing with these techniques in order
to clarify the management, the rate of complications and the outcomes. A search of PubMed and MEDLINE was conducted for English language
articles published between January 1990 and February 2017 with combinations
of key search terms to identify studies dealing with periacetabular
resection with reconstruction in patients with a malignancy. Studies
in English that reported radiographic or clinical outcomes were
included. Data collected from each study included: the number and
type of reconstructions, the pathological diagnosis of the lesions,
the mean age and follow-up, gender distribution, implant survivorship, complications,
functional outcome, and mortality. The results from individual studies
were combined for the general analysis, and then grouped according
to the type of reconstruction. Aims
Patients and Methods
