Search

One of the greatest challenges of hip revision surgery is the need to restore extensive bone loss by creating a stable reconstruction with long-term durability. The present observational, investigator-initiated prospective study was carried out to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of the use of a commercial biomimetic collagen–hydroxyapatite composite biomaterial (RegenOss) applied in hip revision surgery. Thirty-three patients who underwent hip revision were included in this study, and 29 received up to 2 years of follow-up. The acetabulum was reconstructed using an uncemented hemispherical shell both with or without an iliac fixation stem. Functional recovery was assessed according to the Harris Hip Score (HHS) at the pre-hospitalisation check-up, and at 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups. Radiological evaluation consisting of X-ray analyses (6, 12, and 24 month follow-ups) and CT scan exams (within 10 weeks post-surgery and at 12-month follow-up) were performed to evaluate the reduction in bone defect and new bone regeneration. All the patients reported a complete recovery and a considerable improvement in functional outcome assessed by the HHS, which was significantly higher at all the follow-ups than at pre-hospitalisation. Moreover, radiological assessments revealed good scaffold integration. Overall, collected data suggest that RegenOss is a valid and safe alternative to restoring acetabular bone loss in revision hip arthroplasty.

The use of massive bone allografts after the resection of bone tumours is still a challenging process. However, to overcome some issues related to the processing procedures and guarantee the best three-dimensional matching between donor and recipient, some tissue banks have developed a virtual tissue database based on the scanning of the available allografts for using their 3D shape during virtual surgical planning (VSP) procedures. To promote the use of future VSP bone-shaping protocols useful for machining applications within a cleanroom environment, in our work, we simulate a massive bone allograft machining with two different machines: a four-axes (computer numerical control, CNC) vs. a five-axes (robot) milling machine. The allograft design was based on a real case of allograft reconstruction after pelvic tumour resection and obtained with 3D Slicer and Rhinoceros software. Machining simulations were performed with RhinoCAM and graphically and mathematically analysed with CloudCompare and R, respectively. In this case, the geometrical differences of the allograft design are not clinically relevant; however, the mathematical analysis showed that the robot performed better than the four-axes machine. The proof-of-concept presented here paves the way towards massive bone allograft cleanroom machining. Nevertheless, further studies, such as the simulation of different types of allografts and real machining on massive bone allografts, are needed.