Adequate primary stability of the acetabular revision construct is necessary for long-term implant survival. The difference in primary stability between tantalum and titanium components is unclear. Six composite hemipelvises with an acetabular defect were implanted with a tantalum augment and cup, using cement fixation between cup and augment. Relative motion was measured at cup/bone, cup/augment and bone/augment interfaces at three load levels; the results were compared to the relative motion measured at the same interfaces of a titanium cup/augment construct of identical dimensions, also implanted into composite bone. The implants showed little relative motion at all load levels between the augment and cup. At the bone/augment and bone/cup interfaces the titanium implants showed less relative motion than tantalum at 30% load (p < 0.001), but more relative motion at 50% (p = n.s.) and 100% (p < 0001) load. The load did not have a significant effect at the augment/cup interface (p = 0.086); it did have a significant effect on relative motion of both implant materials at bone/cup and bone/augment interfaces (p < 0.001). All interfaces of both constructs displayed relative motion that should permit osseointegration. Tantalum, however, may provide a greater degree of primary stability at higher loads than titanium. The clinical implication is yet to be seen

Acetabular cup deformation may affect liner/cup congruency, clearance and/or osseointegration. It is unclear, whether deformation of the acetabular components occurs during load and to what extent. To evaluate this, revision multi-hole cups were implanted into six cadaver hemipelvises in two scenarios: without acetabular defect (ND); with a large acetabular defect (LD) that was treated with an augment. In the LD scenario, the cup and augment were attached to the bone and each other with screws. Subsequently, the implanted hemipelvises were loaded under a physiologic partial-weight-bearing modality. The deformation of the acetabular components was determined using a best-fit algorithm. The statistical evaluation involved repeated-measures ANOVA. The mean elastic distension of the ND cup was 292.9 µm (SD 12.2 µm); in the LD scenario, 43.7 µm (SD 11.2 µm); the mean maximal augment distension was 79.6 µm (SD 21.6 µm). A significant difference between the maximal distension of the cups in both scenarios was noted (F(1, 10) = 11.404; p = 0.007). No significant difference was noted between the compression of the ND and LD cups, nor between LD cups and LD augments. The LD cup displayed significantly lower elastic distension than the ND cup, most likely due to increased stiffness from the affixed augment and screw fixation.