Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2022; 57(05): 734-740
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739465
Artigo Original
Joelho

Midterm Radiographic Results and Reoperations of Tantalum Trabecular Metal Cones in Knee Arthroplasties

Article in several languages: português | English
Sandra Tie Nishibe Minamoto 
1   Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
,
Luís Felipe Tupinambá da Silva 
1   Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
,
José Leonardo Rocha de Faria 
1   Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
,
Hugo Alexandre de Araujo Barros Cobra 
1   Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
,
Idemar Monteiro da Palma 
2   Hospital Rios D'Or da Rede D'Or São Luiz, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
,
Alan de Paula Mozella 
1   Instituto Nacional de Traumatologia e Ortopedia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil
› Author Affiliations Source of Funding No financial support.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The management of bone loss represents a challenge in revisions of total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and in complex primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the midterm outcomes (5-year minimum follow-up) of knee reconstructions with tantalum trabecular metal (TM) cones on bone defects Anderson Orthopaedics Research Institute (AORI) 2 and 3.

Materials and Methods A retrospective analysis of the medical records of patients operated on between July 2008 and November 2014 was performed, collecting the following data: age, gender, laterality, body mass index, etiology of arthrosis, comorbidities, AORI classification of bone defects, causes for revision, readmissions, reoperations, perioperative and postoperative complications, radiographic signs of osteointegration, and maintenance of the TM support.

Results A total of 11 patients with a mean follow-up of 7.28 years (standard deviation [SD] = 1.88; range = 5.12–10 years) was evaluated, with 1 patient operated upon for a primary arthroplasty, 6 for revision arthroplasties, and 4 for a second revision arthroplasty (re-revision).

There were complications with the surgical wound, injury to the extensor mechanism and loosening of the femoral component in three of the patients that led to the necessity of four procedures due to complications with the surgical wound, injury to the extensor mechanism and loosening of the femoral component. Radiological signs of osteointegration of the trabecular cones were observed in all patients. We did not observe migration of the TM cones or the prosthetic components in the sample.

Conclusion The tantalum metaphyseal cones were able to provide efficient structural support to prosthetic implants with radiographic signs of osteointegration in the medium term.

Keywords

arthroplasty, replacement, knee - osteointegration - knee prosthesis - biocompatible materials

Financial Support

There was no financial support from public, commercial, or non-profit sources.


* Study developed at the National Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.




Publication History

Received: 01 April 2020

Accepted: 08 July 2021

Article published online:
20 June 2022

© 2022. Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Whittaker JP, Dharmarajan R, Toms AD. The management of bone loss in revision total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90 (08) 981-987
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 McAuley JP, Engh GA. Constraint in total knee arthroplasty: when and what?. J Arthroplasty 2003; 18 (03, Suppl 1): 51-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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
  • 5 Dennis DA. The structural allograft composite in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17 (04, Suppl 1): 90-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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 (06) 1233-1237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rao BM, Kamal TT, Vafaye J, Moss M. Tantalum cones for major osteolysis in revision knee replacement. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (08) 1069-1074
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mozella AdeP, Olivero RR, Alexandre H, Cobra AB. Use of a trabecular metal cone made of tantalum, to treat bone defects during revision knee arthroplasty. Rev Bras Ortop 2014; 49 (03) 245-251
    Google Scholar
  • 11 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Toms AD, Barker RL, Jones RS, Kuiper JH. Impaction bone-grafting in revision joint replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86 (09) 2050-2060
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 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 (03) 404-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Use of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty in knees with severe tibial bone loss. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (12) 2640-2647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Berend KR, Lombardi Jr AV. Distal femoral replacement in nontumor cases with severe bone loss and instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (02) 485-492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bauman RD, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Limitations of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (03) 818-824
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Chun CH, Kim JW, Kim SH, Kim BG, Chun KC, Kim KM. Clinical and radiological results of femoral head structural allograft for severe bone defects in revision TKA–a minimum 8-year follow-up. Knee 2014; 21 (02) 420-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Pour AE, Parvizi J, Slenker N, Purtill JJ, Sharkey PF. Rotating hinged total knee replacement: use with caution. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (08) 1735-1741
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Meneghini RM, Lewallen DG, 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 (01) 78-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Radnay CS, Scuderi GR. Management of bone loss: augments, cones, offset stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446 (446) 83-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Potter III GD, Abdel MP, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Midterm Results of Porous Tantalum Femoral Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (15) 1286-1291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 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 (03) 216-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 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
  • 27 Bobyn JD, Stackpool GJ, Hacking SA, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ. Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999; 81 (05) 907-914
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Bonanzinga T, Gehrke T, Zahar A, Zaffagnini S, Marcacci M, Haasper C. Are trabecular metal cones a valid option to treat metaphyseal bone defects in complex primary and revision knee arthroplasty?. Joints 2017; 6 (01) 58-64
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Liu Y, Bao C, Wismeijer D, Wu G. The physicochemical/biological properties of porous tantalum and the potential surface modification techniques to improve its clinical application in dental implantology. Mater Sci Eng C 2015; 49: 323-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Divano S, Cavagnaro L, Zanirato A, Basso M, Felli L, Formica M. Porous metal cones: gold standard for massive bone loss in complex revision knee arthroplasty? A systematic review of current literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018; 138 (06) 851-863
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar