Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2016; 29(08): 614-620
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1593369
Special Focus Section
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Highly Porous Metaphyseal Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Case Series

Nirav K. Patel
1   Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopaedics, Center for Joint Preservation and Replacement, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Eric G. Kim
1   Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopaedics, Center for Joint Preservation and Replacement, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Morad Chughtai
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Anton Khlopas
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Randa D. K. Elmallah
3   Department of Orthopaedics, University of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi
,
Steven F. Harwin
4   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, New York
,
Ronald E. Delanois
1   Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopaedics, Center for Joint Preservation and Replacement, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Michael A. Mont
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

29 July 2016

11 August 2016

Publication Date:
06 October 2016 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Highly porous metaphyseal cones are used for the management of large bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. These cones fill defects and allow bony ongrowth while providing several sizing and offset options. In this case series, we evaluated three patients who received these latest generation metaphyseal cones. Specifically, these cases will be explored in detail with respect to history, indications, operative technique, and short-term outcomes. Overall, these newer generation porous coated cones are excellent options for large contained bone loss in the absence of infection, and they have demonstrated good clinical and radiological outcomes at short-term follow-up.

Keywords

metaphyseal cones - revision total knee arthroplasty - bone loss - bone defect
 

  • References

  • 1 Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (4) 780-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Khan M, Osman K, Green G, Haddad FS. The epidemiology of failure in total knee arthroplasty: avoiding your next revision. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (1, Suppl A ) 105-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classfication and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect 1999; 48: 167-175
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Engh G. Bone defect classficiation. In: Revision total knee arthroplasty. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1997: P.63-120
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Backstein D, Safir O, Gross A. Management of bone loss: structural grafts in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446 (446) 104-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Benjamin J, Engh G, Parsley B, Donaldson T, Coon T. Morselized bone grafting of defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (392) 62-67
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bush JL, Wilson JB, Vail TP. Management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 452 (452) 186-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Meneghini RM, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90 (1) 78-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ritter MA, Harty LD. Medial screws and cement: a possible mechanical augmentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (5) 587-589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Clatworthy MG, Ballance J, Brick GW, Chandler HP, Gross AE. 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–A (3) 404-411
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Höll S, Schlomberg A, Gosheger G , et al. Distal femur and proximal tibia replacement with megaprosthesis in revision knee arthroplasty: a limb-saving procedure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012; 20 (12) 2513-2518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bauman RD, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Limitations of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (3) 818-824
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Howard JL, Kudera J, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Early results of the use of tantalum femoral cones for revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (5) 478-484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Long WJ, 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 (7) 1086-1092
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rao BM, Kamal TT, Vafaye J. Tantalum cones for major osteolysis in revision knee surgery. Bone Joint J 2013; 95–B: 1069-1074
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Schmitz HC, Klauser W, Citak M, Al-Khateeb H, Gehrke T, Kendoff D. Three-year follow up utilizing tantal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (9) 1556-1560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Villanueva-Martínez M, De la Torre-Escudero B, Rojo-Manaute JM, Ríos-Luna A, Chana-Rodriguez F. Tantalum cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. A promising short-term result with 29 cones in 21 patients. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (6) 988-993
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Brown NM, Bell JA, Jung EK, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG, Levine BR. The use of trabecular metal cones in complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (9, Suppl) 90-93
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kamath AF, Lewallen DG, 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 (3) 216-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Beckmann NA, Mueller S, Gondan M, Jaeger S, Reiner T, Bitsch RG. Treatment of severe bone defects during revision total knee arthroplasty with structural allografts and porous metal cones-a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (2) 249-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 De Martino I, De Santis V, Sculco PK, D'Apolito R, Assini JB, Gasparini G. Tantalum cones provide durable mid-term fixation in revision TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (10) 3176-3182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kim E, Patel NK, Mont MA . Tantalum Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Review (Unpublished), 2016
    PubMed
  • 23 Lonner JH, Lotke PA, Kim J, Nelson C. Impaction grafting and wire mesh for uncontained defects in revision knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (404) 145-151
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lotke PA, Carolan GF, Puri N. Impaction grafting for bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446 (466) 99-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Dorr LD, Ranawat CS, Sculco TA, McKaskill B, Orisek BS. Bone graft for tibial defects in total knee arthroplasty. 1986. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446 (446) 4-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ponzio DY, Austin MS. Metaphyseal bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015; 8 (4) 361-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Jensen CL, Winther N, Schrøder HM, Petersen MM. Outcome of revision total knee arthroplasty with the use of trabecular metal cone for reconstruction of severe bone loss at the proximal tibia. Knee 2014; 21 (6) 1233-1237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar