Skip to main content

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

The application of custom-made 3D-printed titanium augments designed through surgical simulation for severe bone defects in complex revision total hip arthroplasty

Abstract

Background

With the development of radiology and three-dimensional (3D) printing technology, custom-made 3D-printed titanium augments have been more widely used. However, the radiological and clinical outcomes of custom-made augments lack reports. To better understand the clinical effect of using 3D-printed titanium augments and the significance of accurate placement, the aim of this study was to assess the outcomes when using custom-made 3D-printed titanium augments and to validate the idea that surgical simulation should be done before designing custom-made augments.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted on 31 surgical simulations and revision total hip arthroplasties using custom-made 3D-printed titanium augments. The safe zone, cup position, and hip rotation center were measured on anteroposterior radiographs. Clinical outcomes were assessed with a mean 21.1 months of follow-up.

Results

All patients were positioned within the safe zone, and none of the acetabular cups nor the custom-made augments had any evidence of migration at the latest follow-up. A strong correlation was found between the planned cup position and the postoperative position. The average vertical position of the center of rotation was significantly increased from 3.55 cm to 2.35 cm. The mean Harris Hip Score was increased from 40.81 preoperatively to 65.46 postoperatively. Complications included gait abnormality, groin pain, fracture of the greater trochanter, and partial palsy of the sciatic nerve. However, patient satisfaction reached 92.3%.

Conclusion

Surgical simulations help to design custom-made augments accurately and improve surgical plans. Acetabular components supported with custom-made 3D-printed augments is a useful method to bridge severe bone deficiencies. In this study, both the radiologic results and clinical outcomes were favorable.

Level of evidence

Level 4.

Introduction

Revision total hip arthroplasties (rTHAs) in the presence of severe acetabular defects can be a big challenge. In this circumstance, the use of a large cementless hemispheric cup is the first choice for most investigators, and has become even more versatile with the introduction of the extra-large hemispheric cup [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. When a hemispheric cup could not be used because of instability or a lack of sufficient cup coverage, porous metal augments were applied to acetabular reconstructions. Both mid-term follow-up and long-term follow-up of porous metal augments have shown excellent survivability [8,9,10].

Recently, with the development of radiology and three-dimensional (3D) printing technology, custom-made 3D-printed titanium augments have been more widely used. The custom-made augment inherits the advantages of the porous metal augment and is more accurate than it. The strengths of custom-made augments include avoiding excessive reaming of the acetabulum due to a poor match, which can preserve the bone stock and simplify the surgery; matching the bone defects perfectly and providing the acetabular component with sufficient initial stability; and their ability to be printed according to the anatomical features of the patients. Thus, they also serve to reconstruct the hip rotation center and restore the hip biomechanics after THAs. Additionally, 3D-printed augments have personalized screw trajectories. Full-length insertion screws can be used, helping to avoid neurovascular bundle damage. Theoretically, custom-made 3D-printed titanium augments should have a more promising outcome than porous metal augments.

However, in the study of Baauw et al. [11], they found that 43.8% of custom-made implants were malpositioned owing to inaccurate planning (a lack of surgical simulation of the 3D-printed hip model). The objectives of our study were (1) to validate the idea that surgical simulation of the 3D-printed hip model should be done before designing custom-made augments and (2) to assess the radiological and clinical outcomes of using custom-made 3D-printed titanium augments.

Materials and methods

Patients and methods

After institutional review board approval, we retrospectively reviewed our revision THAs from August 2017 to November 2021. Patients were included if they received custom-made 3D-printed titanium augments (pore size 600 to 800 μm and porosity 60% to 80%), but they were excluded if they had prefabricated augments besides custom-made augments. Finally, 30 patients (31 hips) were included in our cohort. None of the patients were lost to follow-up.

Demographic data were collected on all patients, as described in Table 1. There were 10 men and 20 women in this study. The mean age at the time of rTHA was 53.7 (33 to 79) years. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 25.2 (17.1 to 38.9) kg/m2. Among the cohort, four patients were followed up for less than 3 months. Due to their short recovery times, they were still taking NSAIDs, and two of them still could not get off their crutches. Those four patients were not included in our clinical outcome assessment, and the mean follow-up was 21.7 months (4.3 to 51.2).

Table 1 Demographic characteristics

Indications for building 3D-printed hip models

Acetabular bone deficiencies were categorized according to the method of Paprosky et al. [12] using pre-revision anteroposterior (AP) radiographs. When the lead surgeon could not directly judge the bony condition from radiographs, computed tomography (Brilliance 256-slice iCT; Philips Healthcare, Cleveland, OH, USA) was needed to provide three-dimensional structural information. Based on the CT data, a 3D-printed hip model (EOS M280 3D printer, EOS, Krailling, Germany) was established, and a simulated surgery was then performed on it. After this procedure, prosthesis selection, prosthesis sizing, the number of augments, and the positions of augments were determined. This procedure is described in the next section.

Surgical simulation

Surgical simulation was performed by the surgical performer in each case. Standard instruments for THA were prepared. The surgeon reamed the acetabulum to the appropriate size in successive increments, replicating the intraoperative process. Post reaming, a trial cup was secured and impacted where possible to achieve sufficient contact area with the host bone and to acquire adequate component stability. In unstable cases, plasticine was shaped and inserted into the acetabular bone deficiencies. Finally, our engineer redesigned custom-made augments according to the shaped plasticine. During this procedure, we checked the match between the 3D-printed augments and pelvic model several times (Fig. 1: case 16).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Parametric measures. a S short axis of the ellipse; Lo long axis of the ellipse; white arrow inclination angle; anteversion < arcsin(S/Lo). b Measuring the position of the hip rotation center. HCOR horizontal position of the center of rotation; VCOR vertical position of the center of rotation. c Measuring the limb length discrepancy

Surgical procedure

The 3D-printed pelvis model and custom-made 3D-printed titanium augments were sterilized and prepared for use in surgery. After preoperative preparation, the failed acetabular component was removed through a posterolateral hip approach. The lead surgeon debrided the remaining acetabulum and reassessed acetabular bone defects by comparison with the 3D-printed hip model. Then the custom-made augments were inserted into the patient and fixed with screws as planned. After that, the acetabulum was reamed with the planned degrees of inclination and anteversion in successive increments from a smaller size to a diameter that was 1 mm or 2 mm less than the planned acetabular cup size. Post reaming, the grinding debris was removed and a trial cup was tested. If the cup position, stability, and contact area with the host bone were thought to be acceptable, bone cement was applied to the surface between the cup and augment and then a porous-coated cementless acetabular shell was secured and impacted with adequate press-fit and screws. Finally, the stability of the cup was evaluated. Table 2 describes the surgical details.

Table 2 Surgical details

Rehabilitation after operation

On the first day after surgery, patients were encouraged to walk with crutches and partial weight-bearing was allowed. A full weight-bearing gait was permitted at 6 weeks postoperatively. In the meantime, short-term antibiotic prophylaxis with a third-generation cephalosporin and low-molecular-weight heparin were applied to all patients.

Radiological assessment

Standard AP radiographs and lateral radiographs were done before the revision THA, at 3 postoperative days, and routinely at every visit. The safe zone [13] and the DeLee and Charnley classification [14] were used to assess the cup fixation, based on the AP radiographs. Radiolucencies were assessed at the cup–bone interface and the augment–bone interface. The osseointegration of acetabular shells and augments was evaluated using the Moore criteria [15] and the Abolghasemian criteria [16], respectively. More than 3 mm of vertical or horizontal migration, a change in inclination angle of over 5°, or less than two signs of osseointegration indicated radiographic failure. The hip rotation center was measured on the preoperative and postoperative AP radiographs based on the modified method of Ranawat et al. [17]. The leg length discrepancy (LLD) was described as the distance from the base of the teardrop to the corresponding tip of the lesser trochanter. When it was violated due to medialization of the acetabular component, the teardrop was identified by reference to the preoperative radiograph. Figure 2 illustrates the measurement process. All image data were assessed by two experienced observers independently.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Scatter plot of each hip’s inclination and anteversion angles

Statistical analysis

Interobserver and intraobserver reliability were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the measurements. Two observers who did not participate in the operations and were blind to the clinical results measured all the parameters. For the intraobserver reliability, the interval between measurements was at least 1 month. Both the intraobserver reliabilities were more than 0.9. The interobserver variance also had an ICC of more than 0.8, which indicated high agreement between all the measurements(see Additional file 1). The mean values of the two observers were used for analysis.

The mean values and ranges were calculated for demographic data and are presented as the mean ± standard deviation with the range. Categorical variable values are presented as percentages. The paired t-test was used to  determine the statistical significance of the preoperative vs. postoperative difference in the hip rotation center. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS version 24.0 (IBM Inc., Armonk, New York).

Results

Radiologic results

Measurements using the AP radiographs taken on postoperative day 3 indicated that all the patients were positioned within the safe zone (Fig. 3). The mean values were 38.12° for inclination and 15.91° for anteversion. One patient showed a local radiolucency in zone I according to the DeLee and Charnley classification system. However, this was found to be a tiny contained bone deficiency in the  roof of the acetabulum and the cup was tested and found to be stable in surgery. At his 1-year follow-up, the radiolucency blurred. In the remaining patients, no radiolucent lines were observed at either the cup–bone or the augment–bone interface during their follow-up. None of the acetabular cups nor 3D-printed augments had any evidence of migration in our study.

Fig. 3
figure 3

The planned and the practical values of cup inclination and anteversion

The correlation between the planned and the postoperative cup orientations is shown in Table 3. The planned cup inclination and anteversion values did not show a significant difference from their postoperative values, and strong correlations were found between the planned and postoperative values (Fig. 4).

Table 3 Planned and practical inclination and anteversion
Fig. 4
figure 4

Surgical simulation. a 3D-printed hip model. b Acetabular bone deficiency in the hip model filled with plasticine. c 3D-printed plastic augments. d 3D-printed porous-metal augments

Table 4 lists the positions of the center of rotation (COR). For the vertical position of the COR (VCOR), there was a difference between the surgical side and the contralateral side preoperatively (3.71 ± 1.66 cm vs. 1.78 ± 1.17 cm). A difference was also found when comparing the preoperative VCOR with the postoperative VCOR. The mean value was significantly improved from 3.71 ± 1.66 cm to 2.33 ± 1.04 cm. No such differences were found for the horizontal position of the COR (HCOR). Although there was still a deviation in the VCOR between the surgical side and the contralateral side postoperatively, the position of the COR was corrected (it was closer to the position of the COR on the contralateral side).

Table 4 Position of COR

Clinical outcomes

As outlined in Table 5, the mean Harris Hip Score (HHS) was improved from 39.98 preoperatively to 69.22 at the final follow-up (P < 0.001). The mean LLD was 0.337 cm, but in one case the LLD exceeded 1 cm. One patient presented with sciatica when the operative hip was flexed beyond 90°, but this symptom was gradually improving. One patient had a fracture of the greater trochanter during surgery. Three patients had slight groin pain occasionally. However, no infections, dislocations, aseptic loosening, or acetabular periprosthetic fractures were found in our study. In the gait assessment at the latest follow-up, 23 patients had a limp, of which 14 were classified as slight, 3 as moderate, and 6 as severe. However, at the end of the follow-up, patient satisfaction reached 92.3%.

Table 5 Clinical results

Discussion

In our study, we found that surgical simulation provided support for the approaches and techniques required. Figure 5 shows the workflow of designing custom-made 3D-printed titanium augments. Using life-size 3D-printed models allows a clear understanding of acetabular bone deficiency. In an article by Jiang et al. [18], a pilot study using patient-specific 3D-printed models as a method of streamlining the preoperative planning process was presented. Kavalerskiy et al. [19] concluded that the number and type of planned augments were the same as the number and type of planned used augments in all 14 cases. In our study, we found the final cup position to have a strong correlation with the plan from surgical simulation. Similar to the result of Li et al. [20], the acceptable deviation might derive from the insufficient proximal exposure or the change in patient position during surgery.

Fig. 5
figure 5

The workflow of designing custom-made 3D-printed titanium augments

The implant positions play a major role in THA instability [21]. In 1978, Lewinnek et al. [13] defined their “safe zone” as 5–25° anteversion and 30–50° inclination, based on AP radiographs. However, this has remained controversial. In the study of Abdel et al. [22], nearly 60% of the unstable THA cases had satisfactory cup positions. Esposito et al. [23] and Reize et al. [24] reported similar results. Even Dorr et al. [25] declared that the safe zone was dead. Lewinnek’s safe zone is not perfect, but it is a simple and science-based method. Based on Lewinnek’s idea, Reina et al. [26] put forward the concept of a “target zone,” which was a narrowed safe zone that showed good ability to distinguish unstable cases from stable cases. However, CT radiographs are needed to use the target zone. In our hospital, postoperative CT scans are not routine examinations during patient follow-up.

The restoration of the COR to an anatomic position is related to satisfactory functional outcomes [27,28,29,30,31]. In our study, the VCOR decreased on average by 1.50 cm compared with its preoperative value on the surgical side. This indicates that the 3D-printed augment is a useful method to restore the anatomical COR.

Among the cohort, six patients had a severe gait abnormality. Gait abnormality is influenced by many factors, including leg length discrepancy, poor gluteus medius strength, and pain [32, 33]. Confounding factors are numerous and difficult to get rid of. After the patients with severe limping for special reasons, including the osteolysis of the greater trochanter, strength of gluteus medius, LLD, and knee stiffness were excluded, our study demonstrated that restoring anatomical COR helped patients to achieve a better gait than before surgery. However, more research is needed to verify the validity of this point.

Limitation

There are several limitations of this study. First, being a retrospective study design, it is never as ideal as a randomized controlled trial for comparisons of this technique with other reconstruction techniques. Second, the small sample size and relatively short follow-up duration may have limited the interpretable power. However, this is one of the largest studies on 3D-printed augments in terms of sample size. Third, the femoral side also has an impact on postoperative gait, but in this study we paid more attention to the relationship between the position of the COR and lameness. Fourth, further follow-up of our patients is needed to demonstrate the long-term efficacy of our custom-made 3D-printed augments. Finally, there is no clear definition of “complex revision THA;” instead, each surgeon decides when to print a hip model and simulate a surgery based on his or her clinical experience and skill level.

Conclusion

Surgical simulations aid the accurate design of custom-made augments and improve surgical plans. Acetabular components supported with custom-made 3D-printed augments are a good way to bridge severe bone deficiencies. In our study, most patients showed satisfactory results in both radiologic and clinical assessments, but further follow-ups are needed to demonstrate long-term results.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the First Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study and so are not publicly available. Data are, however, available from the authors upon reasonable request and with the permission of the First Medical Center of PLA General Hospital.

Abbreviations

3D:

Three-dimensional

THA:

Total hip arthroplasty

HCOR:

Horizontal position of the center of rotation

VCOR:

Vertical position of the center of rotation

HHS:

Harris Hip Score

LLD:

Leg length discrepancy

References

  1. Silverton CD, Rosenberg AG, Sheinkop MB, Kull LR, Galante JO (1996) Revision of the acetabular component without cement after total hip arthroplasty. A follow-up note regarding results at seven to eleven years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 78(9):1366–1370

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dearborn JT, Harris WH (2000) Acetabular revision arthroplasty using so-called jumbo cementless components: an average 7-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 15(1):8–15

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Whaley AL, Berry DJ, Harmsen WS (2001) Extra-large uncemented hemispherical acetabular components for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83(9):1352–1357

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Patel JV, Masonis JL, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH (2003) The fate of cementless jumbo cups in revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 18(2):129–133

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. von Roth P, Abdel MP, Harmsen WS, Berry DJ (2015) Uncemented jumbo cups for revision total hip arthroplasty: a concise follow-up, at a mean of twenty years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(4):284–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Moon JK, Ryu J, Kim Y, Yang JH, Hwang KT, Kim YH (2019) Acetabular revision arthroplasty using press-fitted jumbo cups: an average 10-year follow-up study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139(8):1149–1160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang J, Huang Y, Zhou B, Zhou Y (2019) Mid-term follow-up of acetabular revision arthroplasty using jumbo cups. Orthop Surg 11(5):811–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG (2006) The use of a trabecular metal acetabular component and trabecular metal augment for severe acetabular defects. J Arthroplasty 21(6 Suppl 2):83–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Russell SP, O’Neill CJ, Fahey EJ, Guerin S, Gul R, Harty JA (2021) Trabecular metal augments for severe acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty: a long-term follow-up. J Arthroplasty 36(5):1740–1745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Whitehouse MR, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Garbuz DS (2015) Continued good results with modular trabecular metal augments for acetabular defects in hip arthroplasty at 7 to 11 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(2):521–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Baauw M, van Hellemondt GG, van Hooff ML, Spruit M (2015) The accuracy of positioning of a custom-made implant within a large acetabular defect at revision arthroplasty of the hip. Bone Joint J. 97-b(6):780–785

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Paprosky WG, Perona PG, Lawrence JM (1994) Acetabular defect classification and surgical reconstruction in revision arthroplasty. A 6-year follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 9(1):33–44

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60(2):217–220

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 121:20–32

    Google Scholar 

  15. Moore MS, McAuley JP, Young AM, Engh CA Sr (2006) Radiographic signs of osseointegration in porous-coated acetabular components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 444:176–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Abolghasemian M, Tangsataporn S, Sternheim A, Backstein D, Safir O, Gross AE (2013) Combined trabecular metal acetabular shell and augment for acetabular revision with substantial bone loss: a mid-term review. Bone Joint J 95-b(2):166–172

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ranawat CS, Dorr LD, Inglis AE (1980) Total hip arthroplasty in protrusio acetabuli of rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62(7):1059–1065

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jiang M, Coles-Black J, Chen G, Alexander M, Chuen J, Hardidge A (2021) 3D printed patient-specific complex hip arthroplasty models streamline the preoperative surgical workflow: a pilot study. Front Surg 8:687379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kavalerskiy GM, Murylev VY, Rukin YA, Elizarov PM, Lychagin AV, Tselisheva EY (2018) Three-dimensional models in planning of revision hip arthroplasty with complex acetabular defects. Indian J Orthop 52(6):625–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Li Q, Chen X, Lin B, Ma Y, Liao JX, Zheng Q (2019) Three-dimensional technology assisted trabecular metal cup and augments positioning in revision total hip arthroplasty with complex acetabular defects. J Orthop Surg Res 14(1):431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. McCollum DE, Gray WJ (1990) Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Causes and prevention. Clin Orthop Relat Res 261:159–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Abdel MP, von Roth P, Jennings MT, Hanssen AD, Pagnano MW (2016) What safe zone? The vast majority of dislocated THAs are within the Lewinnek safe zone for acetabular component position. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(2):386–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Esposito CI, Gladnick BP, Lee YY, Lyman S, Wright TM, Mayman DJ et al (2015) Cup position alone does not predict risk of dislocation after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 30(1):109–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Reize P, Geiger EV, Suckel A, Rudert M, Wülker N (2008) Influence of surgical experience on accuracy of acetabular cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop 37(7):360–363

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dorr LD, Callaghan JJ (2019) Death of the Lewinnek “safe zone.” J Arthroplasty 34(1):1–2

  26. Reina N, Putman S, Desmarchelier R, Sari Ali E, Chiron P, Ollivier M et al (2017) Can a target zone safer than Lewinnek’s safe zone be defined to prevent instability of total hip arthroplasties? Case-control study of 56 dislocated THA and 93 matched controls. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103(5):657–661

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Karachalios T, Hartofilakidis G, Zacharakis N, Tsekoura M (1993) A 12- to 18-year radiographic follow-up study of Charnley low-friction arthroplasty. The role of the center of rotation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 296:140–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Delp SL, Maloney W (1993) Effects of hip center location on the moment-generating capacity of the muscles. J Biomech 26(4–5):485–499

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Delp SL, Wixson RL, Komattu AV, Kocmond JH (1996) How superior placement of the joint center in hip arthroplasty affects the abductor muscles. Clin Orthop Relat Res 328:137–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Abolghasemian M, Samiezadeh S, Jafari D, Bougherara H, Gross AE, Ghazavi MT (2013) Displacement of the hip center of rotation after arthroplasty of Crowe III and IV dysplasia: a radiological and biomechanical study. J Arthroplasty 28(6):1031–1035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Asayama I, Chamnongkich S, Simpson KJ, Kinsey TL, Mahoney OM (2005) Reconstructed hip joint position and abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20(4):414–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ikutomo H, Nagai K, Tagomori K, Miura N, Nakagawa N, Masuhara K (2018) Gait abnormality predicts falls in women after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33(10):3215–3219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tezuka T, Inaba Y, Kobayashi N, Ike H, Kubota S, Kawamura M et al (2015) Effects of hip joint center location and femoral offset on abductor muscle strength after total hip arthroplasty. Mod Rheumatol 25(4):630–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

YZ contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by YL, YT, and BZ. ZG, HM, and YD performed the analysis. The first draft of the manuscript was written by YZ, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yonggang Zhou.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Medical School of Chinese PLA.

Consent for publication

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1. 

Intraobserver and interobserver evaluations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Y., Gao, Z., Zhang, B. et al. The application of custom-made 3D-printed titanium augments designed through surgical simulation for severe bone defects in complex revision total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol 23, 37 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-022-00656-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-022-00656-5

Keywords

  • Total hip arthroplasty
  • Revision
  • Three-dimensional printed augment
  • Bone defect