Tantalum metal cups and augments versus custom-made 3D-printed trabecular titanium implants for Paprosky 3A and 3B acetabular defects: mid-term results
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Tantalum metal cups and augments versus custom-made 3D-printed trabecular titanium implants for Paprosky 3A and 3B acetabular defects: mid-term results
56 patients with severe acetabular bone defects with or without pelvic discontinuity were included. In the TCA group 31 patients and 25 in the 3D group with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were included. The main indication for revision surgery with acetabular bone defect was aseptic loosening in both groups.
Results:
The mean follow-up was 57.21 ± 28.81 months. Implant survival rates were 90.32% in the TCA group and 100% in the 3D (P = 0.24). Functional outcomes improved in both groups based on the Merle D'Aubigné & Postel score, with greater improvement in the 3D group (9.24 ± 3.23 vs. 6.55 ± 2.59 points, P = 0.001). Pain levels improved equally in both groups. Surgical time was shorter in the 3D group (108 ± 34.5 vs. 129 ± 43.4 minutes, P = 0.047).There were no significant differences in reoperation rate, transfusion need, hospital stay, or mortality.
Conclusions:
Tantalum metal cups and augments and custom-made 3D-printed trabecular titanium implants demonstrated an excellent survival rate in the management of severe acetabular bone defects. The group of patients operated on with custom 3D-printed implants had better postoperative functional outcomes and a shorter surgical time.
SchwartzAMFarleyKXGuildGN, et al. Projections and epidemiology of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States to 2030. J Arthroplasty2020; 35: S79–S85.
2.
FryhoferGWRameshSShethNP.Acetabular reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Clin Orthop Trauma2020; 11: 22–28.
3.
PaproskyWGPeronaPGLawrenceJM.Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty1994; 9: 33–44.
4.
ButtaroMAde la RosaDMCombaF, et al. High failure rate with the GAP II ring and impacted allograft bone in severe acetabular defects. Clin Orthop Relat Res2012; 470: 3148–3155.
SculcoPKLedfordCKHanssenAD, et al. The evolution of the cup-cage technique for major acetabular defects: full and half cup-cage reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am2017; 99: 1104–1110.
7.
ChristieMCDeBoerDKMorrisonJC, et al. Bridging massive acetabular defects with the triflange cup: 10- to 28-year results. J Arthroplasty2023; 38: 2423–2428.
8.
AbolghasemianMTangsatapornSSternheimA, et al. Combined trabecular metal acetabular shell and augment for acetabular revision with substantial bone loss: a mid-term review. Bone Joint J2013; 95-B: 166–172.
9.
AlexanderJSLombardiAVJrBerendKR, et al. Custom triflange acetabular components for catastrophic bone loss: minimum 5-year results. J Arthroplasty2023; 38: 1330–1334.
10.
TarabichiSBakerCMLizcanoJD, et al. Porous metal augments have comparable outcomes to other constructs for severe acetabular bone loss at mid-term follow-up. J Arthroplasty2024; 39: 3041–3045.
11.
BlackburnAZMittalAVelascoB, et al. AAHKS Surgical Techniques & Technologies Award: inferior screw fixation decreases acetabular component failure following revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2024; 39: S8–S12.
12.
HirvensaloELindahlJBöstmanO.A new approach to the internal fixation of unstable pelvic fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res1993; (297): 28–32.
13.
D’aubigneRMPostelM.Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am1954; 36-A: 451–475.
O’NeillCJCreedonSBBrennanSA, et al. Acetabular revision using trabecular metal augments for Paprosky Type 3 defects. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 823–828.
16.
EachempatiKKMalhotraRPichaiS, et al. Results of trabecular metal augments in Paprosky IIIA and IIIB defects: a multicentre study. Bone Joint J2018; 100-B: 903–908.
17.
GrappioloGLoppiniMLongoUG, et al. Trabecular metal augments for the management of Paprosky Type III defects without pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplasty2015; 30: 1024–1029.
18.
ClementRGERayAGMacDonaldDJ, et al. Trabecular metal use in Paprosky Type 2 and 3 acetabular defects: 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty2016; 31: 863–867.
19.
De MeoFCacciolaGBellottiV, et al. Trabecular Titanium acetabular cups in hip revision surgery: mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes. Hip Int2018; 28: 61–65.
20.
AlqwbaniMWangZWangQ, et al. Porous tantalum shell and augment for acetabular defect reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty: a mid-term follow-up study. Int Orthop2022; 46: 1515–1520.
21.
RussellSPO’NeillCJFaheyEJ, et al. Trabecular metal augments for severe acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty: a long-term follow-up. J Arthroplasty2021; 36: 1740–1745.
22.
BawaleRChoudhryBSamsaniS.Mid-term outcomes of tantalum cup- a single centre study. Arthroplasty2021; 3: 42.
23.
Scharff-BaauwMVan HooffMLVan HellemondtGG, et al. Good results at 2-year follow-up of a custom-made triflange acetabular component for large acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity: a prospective case series of 50 hips. Acta Orthop2021; 92: 297–303.
GladnickBPFehringKAOdumSM, et al. Midterm survivorship after revision total hip arthroplasty with a custom triflange acetabular component. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 500–504.
26.
ChiarloneFZaniratoACavagnaroL, et al. Acetabular custom-made implants for severe acetabular bone defect in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2020; 140: 415–424.
27.
BroekhuisDTordoirRVallingaZ, et al. Custom triflange acetabular components for large acetabular defect reconstruction in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis on 1218 patients. EFORT Open Rev2023; 8: 522–531.
28.
LöchelJJanzVHipflC, et al. Reconstruction of acetabular defects with porous tantalum shells and augments in revision total hip arthroplasty at ten-year follow-up. Bone Joint J2019; 101-B: 311–316.
29.
FarajSde WindtTSvan HooffML, et al. Custom-made acetabular revision arthroplasty for pelvic discontinuity: can we handle the challenge?: a prospective cohort study. Bone Jt Open2023; 4: 53–61.
30.
DzhavadovAAHuangWLiH, et al. In which patients should a custom-made acetabular implant (triflange cup) be used?J Arthroplasty2025; 40: S188–S189.
31.
BaauwMvan HellemondtGGvan HooffML, et al. The accuracy of positioning of a custom-made implant within a large acetabular defect at revision arthroplasty of the hip. Bone Joint J2015; 97-B: 780–785.
32.
SpranzDMüllerL-MTrefzerR, et al. Elevated blood tantalum concentrations in patients following reconstruction of severe acetabular defects in total hip arthroplasty using modular tantalum augments in combination with uncemented tantalum cups. J Arthroplasty2025; 40: 467–474.
