ArticleBone & joint open2026
Early to mid-term outcomes of the custom-made 3D-printed triflange acetabular component (aMace) : the largest UK dual-centre study.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: Various techniques have been described to manage massive acetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty. The aMace system has gained popularity due to its custom design, which aims to restore the hip centre of rotation and provide initial mechanical stability in cases of large, non-contained defects. This study aimed to assess the short- and mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent revision surgery using the aMace system. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent aMace implantation at two revision centres between June 2013 and October 2022, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Data collected included demographic details, indications for surgery, bone loss classification, reconstruction details, reoperations, complications, and functional outcomes. Results: A total of 52 patients underwent revision surgery, with a median follow-up of 51 months (IQR 36 to 72). The mean age was 72.9 years (40 to 87), and 86.5% (45/52) of patients were female. The mean BMI was 25.3 kg/m² (18.2 to 34.7), and the mean American Society of Anesthesiologists grade was III. Most patients had Paprosky type 3B 65.3% (34/52) or 3A 34.6% (18/52) defects. The main indications for revision were aseptic loosening 69.2% (36/52), infection 15.3% (8/52), and periprosthetic fracture 13.4% (7/52). Single-stage revision was performed in 76.9% (40/52), and 67.3% (35/52) underwent both cup and femoral component revision. Dual-mobility bearings were used in 76.9% (40/52) of cases, including 90% (36/40) of single-stage revisions, and 86.5% (45/52) had a metal-on-polyethylene articulation. No aMace components were revised. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.9% (1/52). The overall reoperation rate was 5.7% (3/52), primarily for periprosthetic femoral fracture and dislocation. Leg length discrepancy occurred in 9.6% (5/52). Two cases of sciatic nerve palsy were transient and resolved during follow-up. Statistically significant improvements in pain and mobility were observed (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Our findings support the aMace system for significant acetabular bone loss and pelvic discontinuity, with satisfactory mid-term outcomes and low complications. We recommend these procedures in specialist centres with multidisciplinary team involvement.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.