The best method of revision acetabular arthroplasty remains unclear. Consequently, we reviewed the literature on the treatment of revision acetabular arthroplasty using revision rings (1541 cases; mean follow-up (FU) 5.7 years) and Trabecular Metal, or TM, implants (1959 cases; mean FU 3.7 years) to determine if a difference with regard to revision failure could be determined. Failure rates of the respective implants were compared statistically using a logistic regression model with adjustment for discrepancies in FU time. In our study, TM shows statistically significant decreased loosening rates relative to revision rings for all grades including severe acetabular defects and pelvic discontinuity. The severe defects appear to benefit the most from TM.