Virtual biomechanical assessment of porous tantalum and custom triflange components in the treatment of patients with acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity

Aims The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical models of two frequently used techniques for reconstructing severe acetabular defects with pelvic discontinuity in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) – the Trabecular Metal Acetabular Revision System (TMARS) and custom triflange acetabular components (CTACs) – using virtual modelling. Methods Pre- and postoperative CT scans from ten patients who underwent revision with the TMARS for a Paprosky IIIB acetabular defect with pelvic discontinuity were retrospectively collated. Computer models of a CTAC implant were designed from the preoperative CT scans of these patients. Computer models of the TMARS reconstruction were segmented from postoperative CT scans using a semi-automated method. The amount of bone removed, the implant-bone apposition that was achieved, and the restoration of the centre of rotation of the hip were compared between all the actual TMARS and the virtual CTAC implants. Results The median amount of bone removed for TMARS reconstructions was significantly greater than for CTAC implants (9.07 cm 3 (interquartile range (IQR) 5.86 to 21.42) vs 1.16 cm 3 (IQR 0.42 to 3.53) (p = 0.004). There was no significant difference between the median overall implant-bone apposition between TMARS reconstructions and CTAC implants (54.8 cm 2 (IQR 28.2 to 82.3) vs 56.6 cm 2 (IQR 40.6 to 69.7) (p = 0.683). However, there was significantly more implant-bone apposition within the residual acetabulum (45.2 cm 2 (IQR 28.2 to 72.4) vs 25.5 cm 2 (IQR 12.8 to 44.1) (p = 0.001) and conversely significantly less apposition with the outer cortex of the pelvis for TMARS implants compared with CTAC reconstructions (0 cm 2 (IQR 0 to 13.1) vs 23.2 cm 2 (IQR 16.4 to 30.6) (p = 0.009). The mean centre of rotation of the hip of TMARS reconstructions differed by a mean of 11.1 mm (3 to 28) compared with CTAC implants. Conclusion In using TMARS, more bone is removed, thus achieving more implant-bone apposition within the residual acetabular bone. In CTAC implants, the amount of bone removed is minimal, while the implant-bone apposition is more evenly distributed between the residual acetabulum and the outer cortex of the pelvis. The differences suggest that these implants used to treat pelvic discontinuity might achieve short- and long-term stability through different biomechanical mechanisms. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):74–81.