Lack of enrollment

The purpose of this study is to review the performance and success rate of an FDA cleared cementless hip replacement part called the Trident II Tritanium Acetabular Shell. The study will specifically look at the need to revise the hip replacement after 5 years. This will be compared to how much this happens in patients who have hip replacement with similar cementless acetabular shells.

Inclusion Criteria:

A. Patient has signed an IRB approved, study specific Informed Patient Consent Form.

B. Patient is a male or non-pregnant female age 18-85 years of age at the time of study device implantation.

C. Patient is a candidate for a revision of a failed acetabular component with a cementless acetabular component.

D. Patient is willing and able to comply with postoperative scheduled clinical and radiographic evaluations.

Exclusion Criteria:

E. Patient has a Body Mass Index (BMI) > 45. F. Patient is diagnosed with Inflammatory Arthritis. G. Patient has a non-Stryker retained stem. H. Patient has an active or suspected latent infection in or about the affected hip joint at time of study device implantation.

I. Patient has a mental or neuromuscular disorder which would create an unacceptable risk of prosthesis instability, prosthesis fixation failure, or complications in postoperative care.

J. Patient has compromised bone stock which cannot provide adequate support and/or fixation to the prosthesis.

K. Patient is diagnosed with a systemic disease (e.g. Lupus Erythematosus) or a metabolic disorder (e.g. Paget's Disease) leading to progressive bone deterioration.

L. Patient is immunologically suppressed or receiving steroids in excess of normal physiological requirements (e.g. > 30 days). M. Patient has a known sensitivity to device materials. N. Patient is a prisoner.

14 Participants, including one subject with bilateral hips implanted for a total of 15 Hips Implanted. All Demographic Data presented by Participant.

Adverse event data was collected from date of surgery to date of early termination, which was up to the 2 Year timepoint for the earliest enrolled subject.

No difference of adverse event definition.

Limitation: Early termination leading to small numbers of subjects analyzed due to lack of enrollment.

The Secondary Outcome of Radiographic Stability was corrected and adjusted to tabular presentation in alignment with the pre-specified endpoint in the study protocol, which is a composite endpoint of both Radiolucency and Migration. Radiographic Radiolucency as a standalone Secondary Outcome Measure was erroneously submitted in the original posting.