Advertisement

Radiographic and clinical analysis of a Porous-coated metaphyseal cone for revision total Knee arthroplasty

      Abstract

      Background

      The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiographic and clinical outcomes of a recently introduced metaphyseal cone system for revision TKA.

      Methods

      73 revision TKAs in 72 patients were retrospectively reviewed. All patients had a minimum of 2-year clinical follow-up (mean 34.1 months; range 24.0 to 50.3 months). 114 Metaphyseal cones (64 tibial and 50 femoral) of a single manufacturer were implanted. The most common indications for revision were aseptic loosening (56.9%), second stage reimplantation for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI; 26.4%), and instability (12.5%). All femoral and tibial stems were press-fit cementless stems.

      Results

      Ten of 72 patients underwent re-revision: six for infection (8.3%), two for instability (2.8%), one (1.4%) for patellar tendon rupture and one (1.4%) for femoral component loosening (a cone was not utilized at index revision). Two patients had loose cones (one with an isolated tibial cone and one with both femoral and tibial cones) associated with loose implants but declined re-revision. Aseptic survivorship of our patient cohort free from any re-revision surgery was 95.9% at 2 years (95% CI 87.4–98.7%) and 96.5% of cones demonstrated radiographic evidence of osseointegration. At 2-years, the Knee Society Score (KSS) improved from a mean of 17.2 points preoperatively to 57.8 points (p <.0001).

      Conclusions

      Porous-coated metaphyseal cones from this manufacturer demonstrate excellent aseptic survivorship and radiographic evidence of osseointegration similar to prior designs when used with cementless stems.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The Knee
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Ponzio DY and Austin MS. Metaphyseal bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015; 8: 361-367. 2015/09/13. 10.1007/s12178-015-9291-x.

      2. Sculco PK, Abdel MP, Hanssen AD, et al. The management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty: rebuild, reinforce, and augment. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B: 120-124. 2016/01/07. 10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36345.

      3. Clatworthy MG, Ballance J, Brick GW, et al. The use of structural allograft for uncontained defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. A minimum five-year review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83: 404-411. 2001/03/27. 10.2106/00004623-200103000-00013.

      4. Hilgen V, Citak M, Vettorazzi E, et al. 10-year results following impaction bone grafting of major bone defects in 29 rotational and hinged knee revision arthroplasties: a follow-up of a previous report. Acta Orthop 2013; 84: 387-391. 2013/06/27. 10.3109/17453674.2013.814012.

      5. Berend ME, Ritter MA, Keating EM, et al. Use of screws and cement in revision TKA with primary or revision specific prosthesis with up to 17 years followup. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 86-89. 2014/08/26. 10.1016/j.arth.2014.07.027.

      6. Lotke PA, Carolan GF and Puri N. Impaction grafting for bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446: 99-103. 2006/05/05. 10.1097/01.blo.0000214414.06464.00.

      7. Panni AS, Vasso M and Cerciello S. Modular augmentation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21: 2837-2843. 2012/11/01. 10.1007/s00167-012-2258-1.

      8. Alexander GE, Bernasek TL, Crank RL, et al. Cementless metaphyseal sleeves used for large tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28: 604-607. 2012/11/06. 10.1016/j.arth.2012.08.006.

        • Barnett S.L.
        • Mayer R.R.
        • Gondusky J.S.
        • et al.
        Use of Stepped Porous Titanium Metaphyseal Sleeves for Tibial Defects in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Short Term Results.
        J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29: 1219-1224https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.12.026
      9. Kamath AF, Lewallen DG and Hanssen AD. Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty: a five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: 216-223. 2015/02/06. 10.2106/JBJS.N.00540.

      10. Potter GD, 3rd, Abdel MP, Lewallen DG, et al. Midterm Results of Porous Tantalum Femoral Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98: 1286-1291. 2016/08/05. 10.2106/JBJS.15.00874.

      11. Chalmers BP, Malfer CM, Mayman DJ, et al. Early Survivorship of Newly Designed Highly Porous Metaphyseal Tibial Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today 2021; 8: 5-10. 2021/03/06. 10.1016/j.artd.2021.01.004.

      12. Tetreault MW, Perry KI, Pagnano MW, et al. Excellent two-year survivorship of 3D-printed metaphyseal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2020; 102-B: 107-115. 2020/06/02. 10.1302/0301-620X.102B6.BJJ-2019-1544.R1.

      13. Faizan A, Bhowmik-Stoker M, Alipit V, et al. Development and Verification of Novel Porous Titanium Metaphyseal Cones for Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 1946-1953. 2017/02/16. 10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.013.

      14. Smith and Nephew Legion Cones: Tibial and Femoral Quick Pocket Reference Guide. 2017.

      15. Engh GA and Ammeen DJ. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect 1999; 48: 167-175. 1999/03/31.

      16. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, et al. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989: 13-14. 1989/11/01.

      17. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, et al. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998; 28: 88-96. 1998/08/12. 10.2519/jospt.1998.28.2.88.

      18. Chalmers BP, Sculco PK, Fehring KA, et al. A Novel Percentage-Based System for Determining Aseptic Loosening of Total Knee Arthroplasty Tibial Components. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 2274-2278. 2017/03/14. 10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.020.

      19. Ewald FC. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989: 9-12. 1989/11/01.

      20. Long WJ and Scuderi GR. Porous tantalum cones for large metaphyseal tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24: 1086-1092. 2008/10/01. 10.1016/j.arth.2008.08.011.

      21. Lachiewicz PF, Bolognesi MP, Henderson RA, et al. Can tantalum cones provide fixation in complex revision knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470: 199-204. 2011/04/06. 10.1007/s11999-011-1888-9.

      22. Meneghini RM, Lewallen DG and Hanssen AD. Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90: 78-84. 2008/01/04. 10.2106/jbjs.F.01495.

      23. Denehy KM, Abhari S, Krebs VE, et al. Metaphyseal Fixation Using Highly Porous Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Minimum Two Year Follow Up Study. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34: 2439-2443. 2019/04/20. 10.1016/j.arth.2019.03.045.

      24. Hamilton DF, Howie CR, Burnett R, et al. Dealing with the predicted increase in demand for revision total knee arthroplasty: challenges, risks and opportunities. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B: 723-728. 2015/06/03. 10.1302/0301-620X.97B6.35185.

      25. Inacio MCS, Paxton EW, Graves SE, et al. Projected increase in total knee arthroplasty in the United States - an alternative projection model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2017; 25: 1797-1803. 2017/08/13. 10.1016/j.joca.2017.07.022.