J Knee Surg 2019; 32(09): 833-840
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1669789
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Stacked Tantalum Cones as a Method for Treating Severe Distal Femoral Bone Deficiency in Total Knee Arthroplasty

Ashok Rajgopal
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Fortis Bone and Joint Institute, Fortis Escorts, New Delhi, India
,
Inayat Panda
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Fortis Bone and Joint Institute, Fortis Escorts, New Delhi, India
,
Sidharth Yadav
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Fortis Bone and Joint Institute, Fortis Escorts, New Delhi, India
,
Om Wakde
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Fortis Bone and Joint Institute, Fortis Escorts, New Delhi, India
› Author Affiliations
Funding None.
Further Information

Publication History

10 May 2018

23 July 2018

Publication Date:
06 September 2018 (online)

Abstract

Severe bone loss in distal femur has traditionally been managed with bulk cementing, bone graft, metal augments, trabecular metal cones, and mega prosthesis. The authors present an alternative method using a stacked configuration of two tantalum cones to manage severe distal femoral bone loss. This study aims to evaluate the mid-term outcomes and possible complications in patients treated with this novel technique. We retrospectively analyzed the prospectively maintained records of 16 knees (in 16 patients) presenting with severe distal femoral bone deficiency due to septic loosening (5), giant cell tumor (GCT; 4), periprosthetic fracture (3), aseptic loosening (3), and distal femoral comminuted fracture with severe osteoarthritis (1). A standard medial parapatellar approach was taken in all our cases followed by preparation of distal femoral bone defect and use of two bridging tantalum trabecular metal cones to fill the defect, followed by implantation of rotating hinge knee prosthesis. At an average follow-up of 57 months (4.75 years), the average Knee Society Score was 74.56 (64–87) and the mean range of motion was 97.8 (70–120) degrees. Radiologically, all 16 knees showed good osteointegration with no evidence of progressive radiolucency or loosening. Complications included two patients with superficial infection (healed with antibiotics), and one with recurrence of GCT requiring tumor megaprosthesis reconstruction. The authors concluded that the stacked configuration of cones provides additional coverage and stability with good osteointegration and found it to be particularly useful in distal femoral GCTs and fracture situations. They recommend the use of stacked cones in selected cases of severe distal femoral deficiency.

 
  • References

  • 1 Mancuso F, Beltrame A, Colombo E, Miani E, Bassini F. Management of metaphyseal bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. Acta Biomed 2017; 88 (2-S): 98-111
  • 2 Panegrossi G, Ceretti M, Papalia M, Casella F, Favetti F, Falez F. Bone loss management in total knee revision surgery. Int Orthop 2014; 38 (02) 419-427
  • 3 Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect 1999; 48: 167-175
  • 4 Vasso M, Beaufils P, Cerciello S, Schiavone Panni A. Bone loss following knee arthroplasty: potential treatment options. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2014; 134 (04) 543-553
  • 5 Rorabeck CH, Smith PN. Results of revision total knee arthroplasty in the face of significant bone deficiency. Orthop Clin North Am 1998; 29 (02) 361-371
  • 6 Pala E, Trovarelli G, Angelini A, Maraldi M, Berizzi A, Ruggieri P. Megaprosthesis of the knee in tumor and revision surgery. Acta Biomed 2017; 88 ( 2 -S): 129-138
  • 7 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 (02) 249-253
  • 8 Kim EG, Patel NK, Chughtai M. , et al. Tantalum cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2016; 29 (08) 621-626
  • 9 Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; (248) 13-14
  • 10 Moore RE, Austin MS. Use of porous tantalum cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. Oper Tech Orthop 2012; 22 (04) 209-221
  • 11 Levine BR, Sporer S, Poggie RA, Della Valle CJ, Jacobs JJ. Experimental and clinical performance of porous tantalum in orthopedic surgery. Biomaterials 2006; 27 (27) 4671-4681
  • 12 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 (07) 1086-1092
  • 13 Jensen CL, Petersen MM, Schrøder HM, Flivik G, Lund B. Revision total knee arthroplasty with the use of trabecular metal cones: a randomized radiostereometric analysis with 2 years of follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (10) 1820-1826
  • 14 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 (05) 478-484
  • 15 Lachiewicz PF, Bolognesi MP, Henderson RA, Soileau ES, Vail TP. Can tantalum cones provide fixation in complex revision knee arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (01) 199-204
  • 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 (09) 1556-1560
  • 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 (06) 988-993
  • 18 Derome P, Sternheim A, Backstein D, Malo M. Treatment of large bone defects with trabecular metal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty: short term clinical and radiographic outcomes. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (01) 122-126
  • 19 Boureau F, Putman S, Arnould A, Dereudre G, Migaud H, Pasquier G. Tantalum cones and bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2015; 101 (02) 251-255
  • 20 Girerd D, Parratte S, Lunebourg A. , et al. Total knee arthroplasty revision with trabecular tantalum cones: preliminary retrospective study of 51 patients from two centres with a minimal 2-year follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2016; 102 (04) 429-433
  • 21 McNamara CA, Gösthe RG, Patel PD, Sanders KC, Huaman G, Suarez JC. Revision total knee arthroplasty using a custom tantalum implant in a patient following multiple failed revisions. Arthroplast Today 2016; 3 (01) 13-17
  • 22 Pala E, Trovarelli G, Calabrò T, Angelini A, Abati CN, Ruggieri P. Survival of modern knee tumor megaprostheses: failures, functional results, and a comparative statistical analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (03) 891-899
  • 23 Capanna R, Scoccianti G, Frenos F, Vilardi A, Beltrami G, Campanacci DA. What was the survival of megaprostheses in lower limb reconstructions after tumor resections?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (03) 820-830