Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2015; 28(02): 139-144
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1398375
Special Focus Section
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Wear and Loosening in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Quick Review

James F. Fraser
1   Department of Orthopedics, Banner Good Samaritan Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona
,
Steven Werner
2   Division of Adult Reconstruction, The CORE Institute, Center for Orthopedic Research and Education, Phoenix, Arizona
,
David J. Jacofsky
3   The CORE Institute, Center for Orthopedic Research and Education, Phoenix, Arizona
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

11 November 2014

17 November 2014

Publication Date:
24 December 2014 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Wear and osteolysis are common problems that often require revision surgery following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Wear rates can be reduced through proper implant positioning and the use of modern, highly cross-linked polyethylene liners. More research is needed to identify medications that could prevent or treat the bone loss associated with osteolysis. Bone defects resulting from osteolysis can be managed with a variety of bone-preserving strategies and often require the use of structural augmentation, either in the form of bulk allografts or metal augments. Recently, porous metal augments such as tantalum cones have gained popularity among surgeons performing revision TKA for osteolytic bone defects with promising early clinical results. A megaprosthesis with a rotating hinge device may be used in salvage cases for severe bone deficiencies.

Keywords

wear - osteolysis - bone defects - revision total knee arthroplasty
 

  • References

  • 1 Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E , et al. The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (1) 45-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gallo J, Goodman SB, Konttinen YT, Wimmer MA, Holinka M. Osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty: a review of pathogenetic mechanisms. Acta Biomater 2013; 9 (9) 8046-8058
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Jacofsky D, Hedley A. Fundamentals of Revision Knee Arthroplasty: Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Treatment. 1st ed. Thorofare, NJ: Slack Incorporated; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 4 O'Rourke MR, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Osteolysis associated with a cemented modular posterior-cruciate-substituting total knee design : five to eight-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84-A (8) 1362-1371
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Arora J, Ogden AC. Osteolysis in a surface-cemented, primary, modular Freeman-Samuelson total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87 (11) 1502-1506
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rossi R, Ferro A, Bruzzone M, Bonasia DE, Garzaro G, Castoldi F. NexGen LPS rotating platform total knee arthroplasty: medium-term results of a prospective study. Chir Organi Mov 2009; 93 (2) 65-70
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Kim Y-H, Choi Y, Kim J-S. Osteolysis in well-functioning fixed- and mobile-bearing TKAs in younger patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (11) 3084-3093
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Goodman SB, Gibon E, Yao Z. The basic science of periprosthetic osteolysis. Instr Course Lect 2013; 62: 201-206
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pearl JI, Ma T, Irani AR , et al. Role of the toll-like receptor pathway in the recognition of orthopedic implant wear-debris particles. Biomaterials 2011; 32 (24) 5535-5542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bhandari M, Bajammal S, Guyatt GH , et al. Effect of bisphosphonates on periprosthetic bone mineral density after total joint arthroplasty. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (2) 293-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lin T, Yan S-G, Cai X-Z, Ying Z-M. Bisphosphonates for periprosthetic bone loss after joint arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials. Osteoporos Int 2012; 23 (6) 1823-1834
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Schilcher J, Michaëlsson K, Aspenberg P. Bisphosphonate use and atypical fractures of the femoral shaft. N Engl J Med 2011; 364 (18) 1728-1737
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Spicer DD, Pomeroy DL, Badenhausen WE , et al. Body mass index as a predictor of outcome in total knee replacement. Int Orthop 2001; 25 (4) 246-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hood RW, Wright TM, Burstein AH. Retrieval analysis of total knee prostheses: a method and its application to 48 total condylar prostheses. J Biomed Mater Res 1983; 17 (5) 829-842
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Wasielewski RC, Parks N, Williams I, Surprenant H, Collier JP, Engh G. Tibial insert undersurface as a contributing source of polyethylene wear debris. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997; (345) 53-59
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Li S, Scuderi G, Furman BD, Bhattacharyya S, Schmieg JJ, Insall JN. Assessment of backside wear from the analysis of 55 retrieved tibial inserts. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (404) 75-82
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Galvin A, Jennings LM, McEwen HM, Fisher J. The influence of tibial tray design on the wear of fixed-bearing total knee replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2008; 222 (8) 1289-1293
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Arsoy D, Pagnano MW, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD, Sierra RJ. Aseptic tibial debonding as a cause of early failure in a modern total knee arthroplasty design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (1) 94-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Pijls BG, Valstar ER, Nouta K-A , et al. Early migration of tibial components is associated with late revision: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21,000 knee arthroplasties. Acta Orthop 2012; 83 (6) 614-624
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hoppe S, Mainzer JD, Frauchiger L, Ballmer PM, Hess R, Zumstein MA. More accurate component alignment in navigated total knee arthroplasty has no clinical benefit at 5-year follow-up. Acta Orthop 2012; 83 (6) 629-633
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cawley DT, Kelly N, Simpkin A, Shannon FJ, McGarry JP. Full and surface tibial cementation in total knee arthroplasty: a biomechanical investigation of stress distribution and remodeling in the tibia. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2012; 27 (4) 390-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Popoola OO, Yao JQ, Johnson TS, Blanchard CR. Wear, delamination, and fatigue resistance of melt-annealed highly crosslinked UHMWPE cruciate-retaining knee inserts under activities of daily living. J Orthop Res 2010; 28 (9) 1120-1126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Stoller AP, Johnson TS, Popoola OO, Humphrey SM, Blanchard CR. Highly crosslinked polyethylene in posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty: in vitro performance evaluation of wear, delamination, and tibial post durability. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (3) 483-491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ries MD, Pruitt L. Effect of cross-linking on the microstructure and mechanical properties of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 440 (440) 149-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Collier MB, Engh Jr CA, McAuley JP, Ginn SD, Engh GA. Osteolysis after total knee arthroplasty: influence of tibial baseplate surface finish and sterilization of polyethylene insert. Findings at five to ten years postoperatively. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (12) 2702-2708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lerf R, Zurbrügg D, Delfosse D. Use of vitamin E to protect cross-linked UHMWPE from oxidation. Biomaterials 2010; 31 (13) 3643-3648
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Oral E, Muratoglu OK. Vitamin E diffused, highly crosslinked UHMWPE: a review. Int Orthop 2011; 35 (2) 215-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Huang C-H, Ma H-M, Liau J-J, Ho F-Y, Cheng C-K. Osteolysis in failed total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing knees. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84-A (12) 2224-2229
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kim Y-H, Kim J-S. Prevalence of osteolysis after simultaneous bilateral fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties in young patients. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24 (6) 932-940
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Huff TW, Sculco TP. Management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (7) (Suppl. 03) 32-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Steens W, Loehr JF, Wodtke J, Katzer A. Morselized bone grafting in revision arthroplasty of the knee: a retrospective analysis of 34 reconstructions after 2-9 years. Acta Orthop 2008; 79 (5) 683-688
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect 1999; 48: 167-175
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Griffin WL, Scott RD, Dalury DF, Mahoney OM, Chiavetta JB, Odum SM. Modular insert exchange in knee arthroplasty for treatment of wear and osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 464 (464) 132-137
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Callaghan JJ, Reynolds ER, Ting NT, Goetz DD, Clohisy JC, Maloney WJ. Liner exchange and bone grafting: rare option to treat wear & lysis of stable TKAs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (1) 154-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Mackay DC, Siddique MS. The results of revision knee arthroplasty with and without retention of secure cemented femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003; 85 (4) 517-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Beckmann J, Lüring C, Springorum R, Köck FX, Grifka J, Tingart M. Fixation of revision TKA: a review of the literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (6) 872-879
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Fehring TK, Odum S, Olekson C, Griffin WL, Mason JB, McCoy TH. Stem fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparative analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (416) 217-224
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Whiteside LA. Cementless fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446 (446) 140-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 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 (4) 387-391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Lotke PA, Carolan GF, Puri N. Technique for impaction bone grafting of large bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21 (4) (Suppl. 01) 57-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 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
  • 42 Hockman DE, Ammeen D, Engh GA. Augments and allografts in revision total knee arthroplasty: usage and outcome using one modular revision prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20 (1) 35-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 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
  • 44 Vasso M, Beaufils P, Cerciello S, Schiavone Panni A. Bone loss following knee arthroplasty: potential treatment options. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2014; 134 (4) 543-553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Meneghini RM, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (Suppl 2, Pt 1): 131-138
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 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 (1) 199-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 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 2014;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar