Standard Versus Custom-Made Acetabular Implants in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background: Today, various options are used for the reconstruction of acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA). The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of using standard acetabular implants (SAIs) and custom-made acetabular implants (CMAIs) in RTHA in cases with extensive acetabular bone loss. Methods: This was a comparative analysis of the results of 106 operations of RTHA performed during the period from January 2013 to December 2019. In 61 cases (57.5%), CMAIs were used. In 45 cases (42.5%), SAIs were implanted. Results: The incidence of aseptic loosening of the acetabular component after RTHA in uncontained loss of bone stock of the acetabulum (type III-IV as per the Gross and Saleh classification) using the CMAI was less than that using the SAI (2.4% and 10.0%, respectively). The most significant differences in aseptic loosening rates were noted after implantation of the CMAI and SAI in pelvic discontinuity with uncontained bone defect (0% and 60.0%, respectively; P < .001). Conclusion: The ideal indications for the use of the CMAI are uncontained defects and pelvic discontinuity with uncontained loss of bone stock (types III-V Gross and Saleh classification). Treatment of these defects with the SAI leads to a higher incidence of aseptic loosening requiring re-revisions. Further observation is required to assess the effectiveness of using the CMAI and SAI in the long-term follow-up period. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Automated summary

This study compared the outcomes of using standard acetabular implants (SAIs) and custom-made acetabular implants (CMAIs) in the reconstruction of acetabular bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA). The results showed that the incidence of aseptic loosening was lower when using CMAI compared to SAI in cases with extensive acetabular bone loss.