Subscribe to RSS
Please copy the URL and add it into your RSS Feed Reader.
https://www.thieme-connect.de/rss/thieme/en/10.1055-s-00000161.xml
Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2016; 29(08): 614-620
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1593369
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1593369
Special Focus Section
Highly Porous Metaphyseal Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Case Series
Authors
Further Information
Publication History
29 July 2016
11 August 2016
Publication Date:
06 October 2016 (online)
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.
-
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
- 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
- 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
- 4 Engh G. Bone defect classficiation. In: Revision total knee arthroplasty. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1997: P.63-120
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 9 Ritter MA, Harty LD. Medial screws and cement: a possible mechanical augmentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (5) 587-589
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 15 Rao BM, Kamal TT, Vafaye J. Tantalum cones for major osteolysis in revision knee surgery. Bone Joint J 2013; 95–B: 1069-1074
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 22 Kim E, Patel NK, Mont MA . Tantalum Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Review (Unpublished), 2016
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 26 Ponzio DY, Austin MS. Metaphyseal bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015; 8 (4) 361-367
- 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