Patient-specific, CT-designed monoblock implants with iliac, ischial and pubic flanges for Paprosky IIIA/IIIB defects and chronic pelvic discontinuity
- Triflange is a patient-specific monoblock porous-coated implant with flanges fixed to ilium, ischium and pubis, designed from thin-slice CT with metal artefact reduction
- Infection MUST be excluded before design commences β aspiration, inflammatory markers, and where needed staged debridement; a triflange into an infected bed is a disaster
- Bone loss can progress between CT and surgery β minimise the interval, warn the engineers, and re-image if the wait exceeds roughly 3 months or the patient deteriorates
- Full flange seating demands wide exposure: extended posterior approach, clearance of soft tissue from lateral ilium and ischium, sciatic nerve identified and protected during ischial work
- Screw sequence matters: provisional seat, then ischial screws (compress discontinuity), then iliac screws, dome screws last; the construct converts discontinuity into a rigidly bridged internal-fixation-plus-arthroplasty solution
- Dislocation is the commonest failure mode β modern designs incorporate dual mobility or constrained liners and lateralised, patient-specific centre of rotation
- βKohler line violation plus superomedial migration equals IIIB β always screen for discontinuity with Judet views and CT
- βThe triflange restores the hip centre by design β the implant dictates position, so intra-operative freedom is minimal; accuracy of the plan is everything
- βFlange fracture is rare with modern additive-manufactured titanium; loosening usually presents as screw breakage or flange lift-off on serial radiographs
Aspirate the hip, send synovial WCC, differential and culture; check CRP/ESR. A two-stage protocol precedes any custom implant if infection is confirmed. Ordering a bespoke implant into a septic bed wastes months and thousands, and condemns the reconstruction.
Ischial flange seating and screw placement occur millimetres from the sciatic nerve. Identify the nerve, keep the hip extended and knee flexed, and use retractors on bone, not soft tissue. Nerve palsy rates of several percent are reported in triflange series.
The implant fits the pelvis as it was on the day of the CT. Progressive osteolysis, fracture propagation or migration between imaging and surgery can leave a non-fitting implant. Minimise the interval and re-scan if delayed.
Massive bone loss means deficient abductors and capsule. Plan a dual mobility or constrained articulation within the triflange at the design stage, not as an intra-operative rescue.
Concept and Rationale
A custom triflange acetabular component (CTAC) is a patient-specific, monoblock, porous-coated titanium implant manufactured from the patient's own CT data. It gains fixation entirely on host bone outside the defect β the lateral ilium, the ischium and the superior pubic ramus β via three flanges, each with pre-planned multi-axial screw trajectories. The acetabular shell sits at a pre-designed, restored hip centre, independent of the destroyed native rim.
- In Paprosky IIIA/IIIB there is insufficient rim to achieve press-fit or bridging fixation for a jumbo cup, even with augments
- The triflange behaves as internal fixation plus arthroplasty in one implant: the iliac and ischial flanges, rigidly linked through the shell, function as a plate spanning a pelvic discontinuity
- Porous ingrowth surface (modern implants: additive-manufactured trabecular titanium, sometimes with hydroxyapatite) on the bone-facing surfaces allows secondary biological fixation once initial rigid screw fixation is achieved
- The design process restores hip centre, offset and version on the computer, compensating for anatomy that cannot be judged intra-operatively
cost, design-to-delivery lead time (typically 6 to 12 weeks), minimal intra-operative adjustability, and the demand for an extensile exposure.
Indications and Contraindications
- Paprosky IIIA and IIIB defects where a stable hemispherical construct (even with porous metal augments) cannot be achieved
- Chronic pelvic discontinuity β the strongest and most established indication; the rigid monoblock bridges the discontinuity
- Failed prior cage or cup-cage reconstruction with progressive bone loss
- Massive irradiation-associated bone loss (post pelvic radiotherapy osteonecrosis) β dead, sclerotic bone will not support conventional ingrowth cups; triflange distributes load to remaining viable bone
- Failed prior triflange or structural allograft with defect beyond salvage by off-the-shelf means
- Selected tumour resection reconstructions (periacetabular resection with custom hemipelvis-type implants β a related but distinct workflow)
Design Workflow: CT to Implant
Thin-slice CT (1 mm or less slice thickness) of the whole pelvis with metal artefact reduction sequences/algorithms; existing implants left in situ are segmented around. Some centres remove loose components first, but most design around retained hardware and plan removal intra-operatively.
Engineers segment the pelvis into a 3D model, subtract metal artefact, and map residual host bone quality and thickness. Discontinuity, if present, is characterised. Screw-quality bone (posterior column, sciatic buttress, supra-acetabular ilium, ischial tuberosity, superior pubic ramus) is identified.
Web-based design review sessions. Surgeon approves: hip centre of rotation (restored to anatomical or slightly medialised/distalised per plan), cup inclination and anteversion, flange footprint on ilium/ischium/pubis, every screw trajectory, length and diameter (avoiding sciatic notch, obturator vessels, intrapelvic structures), porous surface distribution, liner type (dual mobility, constrained or conventional), and bone to be removed for seating. Sterilisable 3D-printed pelvis model and trial usually supplied.
Additive manufacture (electron beam or laser sintered titanium) or machined titanium with plasma-sprayed porous coating with or without hydroxyapatite. Design sign-off is a formal, documented step. Total lead time 6 to 12 weeks β this drives the interval-bone-loss problem and precludes use in acute settings.
Unlike a cage, every triflange screw is planned pre-operatively into the best remaining bone: iliac screws directed towards the sciatic buttress and sacroiliac region, ischial screws down the ischial tuberosity, pubic flange usually with one or two short screws or purely buttressing. Intra-operative drill guides (built into the flanges) reproduce the planned trajectories.
Surgical Technique
lateral decubitus, secure pelvic supports (accurate pelvic position matters less than with freehand cups because the implant self-locates, but stability matters for the long exposure). Cell salvage, blood cross-matched, neuromonitoring in selected discontinuity cases.
extended posterior (posterolateral) approach is standard; some use a trochanteric osteotomy or slide for iliac access.
- Identify and protect the sciatic nerve throughout β hip extended, knee flexed during ischial dissection
- Iliac flange bed: elevate abductors/soft tissue subperiosteally from the lateral ilium sufficient for the full flange footprint β use the 3D model as the guide to how far to go
- Ischial flange bed: clear soft tissue from the lateral ischium; the flange must seat flush on bone, not on scar
- Pubic flange: anterior-inferior dissection along the superior ramus; care with obturator neurovascular bundle
- Remove failed components, all cement, membrane and non-viable bone; send tissue for culture and frozen section if any doubt about infection
Never force or radically recontour the pelvis freehand β you destroy the fixation bone the design depends on. Systematically compare the pelvis to the sterile 3D model, clear residual soft tissue or the specific bony prominence identified, and re-trial. If truly non-fitting (interval bone loss), convert to the pre-planned bail-out construct.
Triflange versus Cup-Cage and Alternatives
- Custom triflange
- Patient-specific, exact
- Cup-cage
- Off-the-shelf, adapted intra-op
- Porous cup plus augments
- Modular, adapted intra-op
- Custom triflange
- 6 to 12 week lead time
- Cup-cage
- Immediate
- Porous cup plus augments
- Immediate
- Custom triflange
- Rigid monoblock bridge β excellent
- Cup-cage
- Good β cage bridges, cup ingrows
- Porous cup plus augments
- Poor unless combined with plating/distraction
- Custom triflange
- Porous flange and shell surfaces
- Cup-cage
- Via the cemented-in porous cup
- Porous cup plus augments
- Cup and augments
- Custom triflange
- Minimal β plan is fixed
- Cup-cage
- High
- Porous cup plus augments
- High
- Custom triflange
- High
- Cup-cage
- Moderate
- Porous cup plus augments
- Moderate
- Custom triflange
- Dislocation
- Cup-cage
- Dislocation, cage fatigue
- Porous cup plus augments
- Loosening if rim fixation inadequate
- Custom triflange
- Chronic discontinuity, un-reconstructable rim, irradiated bone, failed cup-cage
- Cup-cage
- IIIA/IIIB with discontinuity when immediate solution needed
- Porous cup plus augments
- IIIA with reconstructable rim
Comparative series (including matched cohorts of triflange versus cup-cage for discontinuity) show broadly similar mid-term survivorship; choice is driven by defect geometry, urgency, availability, prior failed constructs and institutional experience. Failed cup-cage is itself an indication for triflange.
Outcomes and Complications
- Most published series report aseptic survivorship in the region of 80 to 95 percent at 5 to 10 years, remarkable given the severity of the defects treated
- Radiographic healing of pelvic discontinuity is reported in the majority of cases
- Failure modes: instability requiring revision, deep infection, aseptic loosening (screw breakage, flange lift-off, migration); catastrophic flange fracture is rare
Custom triflange for pelvic discontinuity
Early triflange experience
Triflange for failed prior reconstructions and massive defects
Systematic reviews and pooled series
Guidelines, Registries & Global Practice
- Global epidemiology: the burden of severe acetabular bone loss is rising worldwide with the growing revision arthroplasty load; Paprosky III defects and discontinuity constitute a small but resource-intensive fraction of revisions in all registries
- Society guidance: no society issues a dedicated triflange guideline; the topic is governed by general revision-arthroplasty principles β infection exclusion per EBJIS/ICM consensus criteria for periprosthetic joint infection is universally applicable before custom implant design. AAOS and NICE guidance on hip revision addresses infection workup and implant selection principles rather than custom devices specifically. Custom implants fall under medical device regulation for custom-made devices (for example EU MDR custom-made device provisions and equivalent national frameworks), which requires named-patient documentation and surgeon prescription
- Registry evidence: national registries (NJR, AJRR, AOANJRR, SHAR, Norwegian, NZJR) capture custom acetabular components inconsistently and in small numbers, so survivorship evidence comes principally from institutional and multicentre case series rather than registry analyses; registry reports nonetheless confirm instability and infection as the dominant revision-for-revision failure modes in complex acetabular reconstruction
- Practice variation by resource setting: triflange availability is concentrated in high-resource centres with additive-manufacturing partnerships; in resource-limited settings, cup-cage, reinforcement rings with cemented cups, or resection-type salvage remain the mainstay for IIIB defects. Lead time and cost make the triflange impractical for acute discontinuity everywhere; even well-resourced units keep cup-cage as the immediate-availability solution
Controversies & Areas of Uncertainty
- Triflange versus cup-cage for chronic discontinuity: matched comparative data show similar mid-term outcomes; no randomised evidence exists, and choice remains institution- and defect-driven
- Bridging versus biology for discontinuity: the triflange rigidly bridges; the distraction technique aims to stimulate healing through controlled distraction with a porous cup β whether discontinuity "healing" is necessary if the bridge is durable is debated
- Articulation choice: routine dual mobility versus selective constrained liners β constrained liners reduce dislocation but transfer force to the fixation interfaces
- Threshold for re-imaging: no consensus on the maximum acceptable CT-to-surgery interval; roughly 3 months is a common pragmatic limit
- Cost-effectiveness: high implant cost against reduced re-revision remains poorly quantified; health-economic data are sparse
- Design ownership and regulation: increasing scrutiny of custom-device pathways under evolving device regulation may affect availability and lead times
Mnemonics
I-I-D: Ischium, Ilium, DomeTriflange fixation order
Hook:Fix from below upwards β inferior segment first, then bridge to the ilium.
SCAN: Sepsis excluded, CT thin-slice, Approve every screw, No long delaysPre-order checklist
Hook:You SCAN the pelvis, then SCAN your plan.