Knie-TEP-Verankerung bei Revision und schlechten Knochenverhältnissen. Knochen, Zement, Schaft, Sleeve, Konus?

Ufuk Sentürk; Carsten Perka

doi:10.1055/a-0630-2802

Zeitschrift für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Table of Contents

Z Orthop Unfall 2018; 156(06): 711-717
DOI: 10.1055/a-0630-2802

Aus den Sektionen – AE Deutsche Gesellschaft für Endoprothetik

Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Knie-TEP-Verankerung bei Revision und schlechten Knochenverhältnissen. Knochen, Zement, Schaft, Sleeve, Konus?

Fixation Techniques in Revision TKA with Poor Bone Conditions. Bone, Cement, Stem, Sleeve, or Cone?

Ufuk Sentürk

Centrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin

,

Carsten Perka

Centrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Zusammenfassung

Nach aktuellen Registerdaten muss von einer erheblichen Steigerung von Revisionsoperationen in der Kniegelenksendoprothetik ausgegangen werden. Diese gehen häufig mit ausgeprägten knöchernen Defekten einher. Die stabile und korrekte Implantatverankerung ist und bleibt eine Herausforderung. Voraussetzung für langfristige und reproduzierbare Ergebnisse ist die Auswahl der korrekten Rekonstruktions- und Verankerungsstrategie unter Beachtung des vorliegenden Knochendefekts sowie der patientenspezifischen Anatomie.

Abstract

Recent registry data predict a significant increase in revision surgery in TKA, which is often associated with severe bony defects. Stable and correct implant fixation remains a challenge. The prerequisite for long-term and reproducible results is the selection of the correct reconstruction and fixation strategy, taking into account the existing bone defect as well as the patient-specific anatomy.

Schlüsselwörter

Knieendoprothetik - Revisionsendoprothetik - Knochendefektrekonstruktion - Verankerungsstrategien

Key words

TKA - revision TKA - bone defect reconstruction - fixation strategies

Full Text

References

Literatur
1 Inacio MCS, Paxton EW, Graves SE. et al. Projected increase in total knee arthroplasty in the United States e an alternative projection model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2017; 25: 1797-1803
2 National Joint Registry for England and Wales. 9th Annual report, 2012. Im Internet: http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Portals/0/Documents/England/Reports/9th_annual_report/NJR%209th%20Annual%20Report%202012.pdf Stand: 10.01.2018
3 Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K. et al. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87: 1487
4 Hanna SA, Aston WJ, de Roeck NJ. et al. Cementless Revision TKA with Bone Grafting of Osseous Defects Restores Bone Stock with a Low Revision Rate at 4 to 10 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 3164-3171
5 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: 387-391
6 Baker P, Cowling P, Kurtz S. et al. Reason for revision influences early patient outcomes after aseptic knee revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470: 2244
7 Ong KL, Lau E, Suggs J. et al. Risk of subsequent revision after primary and revision total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 3070
8 Huten D. Femorotibial bone loss during revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013; 99 (Suppl. 01) S22-S33
9 Sculco PK, Abdel MP, Hanssen AD. et al. The management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty: rebuild, reinforce, and augment. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B(1 Suppl. A): 120-124
10 Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect 1999; 48: 167-175
11 Morgan-Jones R, Oussedik SIS, Graichen H. et al. Zonal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B: 147-149
12 Whittaker JP, Dharmarajan R, Toms AD. The management of bone loss in revision total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90: 981-987
13 Dennis DA. Repairing minor bone defects: augmentation and autograft. Orthopedics 1998; 21: 1036-1038
14 Saha S, Pal S. Mechanical properties of bone cement: a review. J Biomed Mater Res 1984; 18: 435-462
15 Hooten jr. JP, Engh jr. CA, Engh CA. Failure of structural acetabular allografts in cementless revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1994; 76: 419-422
16 van Loon CJ, de Waal Malefijt MC, Buma P. et al. Autologous morselised bone grafting restores uncontained femoral bone defects in knee arthroplasty: an in vivo study in horses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000; 82-B: 436-444
17 Bauman RD, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Limitations of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 818-824
18 Tomford WW, Thongphasuk J, Mankin HJ. et al. Frozen musculoskeletal allografts. A study of the clinical incidence and causes of infection associated with their use. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990; 72: 1137-1143
19 Clatworthy MG, Ballance J, Brick GW. et al. 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: 404-411
20 Beckmann J, Lüring C, Springorum R. et al. Fixation of revision TKA: a review of the literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19: 872-879
21 Patel AR, Barlow B, Ranawat AS. Stem length in revision total knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015; 8: 407-412
22 Nelson CL, Vanushkina M, Irgit K. et al. Stemmed femoral implants show lower failure rates in revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2015; 22: 429-434
23 Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES. A 30-mm cemented stem extension provides adequate fixation of the tibial component in revision knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473: 185-189
24 Mabry TM, Hanssen AD. The role of stems and augments for bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22: 56
25 Mabry TM, Vessely MB, Schleck CD. et al. Revision total knee arthroplasty with modular cemented stems: long-term follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22: 100
26 Haidukewych GJ, Hanssen A. Metaphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: indications and techniques. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2011; 19: 311
27 Brand MG, Daley RJ, Ewald FC. et al. Tibial tray augmentation with modular metal wedges for tibial bone stock deficiency. Clin Orthop 1989; 248: 71-79
28 Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Rand JA. Tibial wedge augmentation for bone deficiency in total knee arthroplasty. A followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995; 321: 151-155
29 Cuckler JM. Bone loss in total knee arthroplasty: graft augment and options. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (Suppl. 01) 56-58
30 Watters TS, Martin JR, Levy DL. et al. Porous-Coated Metaphyseal Sleeves for Severe Femoral and Tibial Bone Loss in Revision TKA. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 3468-3473
31 Alexander GE, Bernasek TL, Crank RL. et al. Cementless metaphyseal sleeves used for large tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28: 604-607
32 Huang R, Barrazueta G, Ong A. et al. Revision total knee arthroplasty using metaphyseal sleeves at short-term follow-up. Orthopedics 2014; 37: e804-e809
33 Barnett SL, Mayer RR, Gondusky JS. et al. Use of stepped porous titanium metaphyseal sleeves for tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: short term results. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 1219-1224
34 Agarwal S, Azam A, Morgan-Jones R. Metal metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee replacement. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B: 1640-1644
35 Kindsfater K. Stemless Revision TKA Utilizing Press-Fit Metaphyseal Sleeves: Mid-Term Results of a Novel Technique. Reconstructive Review. Abstract supplement: Pan Pacific Orthopaedic Congress 2014; 136.
36 Gøttsche D, Lind T, Christiansen T. et al. Cementless metaphyseal sleeves without stem in revision total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2016; 136: 1761-1766
37 Cohen R. A porous tantalum trabecular metal: basic science. Am J Orthop 2002; 31: 216-217
38 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: 216-223
39 Potter 3rd GD, Abdel MP, Lewallen DG. et al. Midterm Results of Porous Tantalum Femoral Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98: 1286-1291
40 Sheth NP, Bonadio MP, Demange MK. Bone Loss in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Evaluation and Management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2017; 25: 348-357
41 Kostuj T, Streit R, Baums MH. et al. Midterm outcome after mega-prosthesis implanted in patients with bony defects in cases of revision compared to patients with malignant tumors. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 1592-1596