Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Joints 2019; 07(04): 135-140
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1730377
Original Article

Porous-Coated Metaphyseal Sleeves in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Midterm Results

Giacomo Stefani 
1   Istituto Clinico “Città di Brescia,” Brescia, Italy
,
Valerio Mattiuzzo
1   Istituto Clinico “Città di Brescia,” Brescia, Italy
,
Greta Prestini
1   Istituto Clinico “Città di Brescia,” Brescia, Italy
,
Carolina Civitenga
1   Istituto Clinico “Città di Brescia,” Brescia, Italy
,
Roberto Calafiore
2   Casa di cura “Città di Parma,” Parma, Italy
,
Francesco Traverso
3   Istituto Humanitas, Rozzano, Milano, Italy
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Erratum: Porous-Coated Metaphyseal Sleeves in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Midterm ResultsJoints 2019; 07(04): e1-e1
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1736205

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy in terms of clinical results and radiographic findings of using metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and to check if the use of sleeves without stems did not impair such results.

Methods In this retrospective study, 141 patients (143 knees) operated in the period 2008 to 2015 met the above-mentioned criteria and were invited to a medical examination including X-rays. A total of 121 knees were available for the study (44 in the group without stems and 77 in the group with stems). Mean follow-up was 63 months for the stemless group and 89 for the group with stems. Knee Society Score (KSS) (objective knee score) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were used as outcome scores and compared with baseline values, range of motion (ROM) was also compared with preop value and X-rays were also examined and compared with immediate postop X-rays to check signs of loosening and radiolucent lines, if any, and bone ingrowth. Satisfaction of the patients was also investigated using a linear scale from 1 to 10.

Results KSS improved from 34 to 81 postop (39 to 81 in the stemless group) (p < 0.01), while WOMAC from 82% preop to 39% postop (76 to 37% in the stemless group) (p < 0.01). Forty-six patients were satisfied, 20 partially satisfied, and 11 unsatisfied (respectively 25–14–5 in the stemless group). ROM improved from 89 degrees preop to 99 degrees postop (93 to 98 degrees in the stemless group). X-rays showed no loosening of the implant, radiolucent lines in 8 patients, and bone ingrowth in 113 out of 121 patients.

Conclusion In this midterm follow-up study, we found a significant improvement in clinical results compared with preop values. We found no difference between the two groups (with and without stems) thus suggesting that the use of stemless sleeves does not impair results in revision TKA.

Level of Evidence Therapeutic case series, level IV.

Keywords

knee - total knee arthroplasty - revision - metaphyseal sleeves


Publication History

Received: 20 October 2019

Accepted: 18 April 2021

Article published online:
14 June 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). 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 commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 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
  • 2 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Whaley AL, Trousdale RT, Rand JA, Hanssen AD. Cemented long-stem revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2003; 18 (05) 592-599
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Manopoulos P, Havet E, Pearce O, Lardanchet JF, Mertl P. Mid- to long-term results of revision total knee replacement using press-fit intramedullary stems with cemented femoral and tibial components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94 (07) 937-940
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Whiteside LA. Morselized allografting in revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 1998; 21 (09) 1041-1043
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dorr LD, Ranawat CS, Sculco TA. et al. Bone graft for tibial defects in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (392) 306-314
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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
  • 8 Sculco PK, Abdel MP, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 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
  • 10 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
  • 11 Haidukewych GJ, Hanssen A, Jones RD. Metaphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: indications and techniques. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2011; 19 (06) 311-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Dalury DF, Barrett WP. The use of metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2016; 23 (03) 545-548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bugler KE, Maheshwari R, Ahmed I, Brenkel IJ, Walmsley PJ. Metaphyseal sleeves for revision total knee arthroplasty: good short-term outcomes. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (11) 1990-1994
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Graichen H, Scior W, Strauch M. Direct, cementless, metaphysical fixation in knee revision arthroplasty with sleeves: short-term results. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (12) 2256-2259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Barnett SL, Mayer RR, Gondusky JS, Choi L, Patel JJ, Gorab RS. Use of stepped porous titanium metaphyseal sleeves for tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: short term results. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (06) 1219-1224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Watters TS, Martin JR, Levy DL, Yang CC, Kim RH, Dennis DA. Porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves for severe femoral and tibial bone loss in revision TKA. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (11) 3468-3473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Martin-Hernandez C, Floria-Arnal LJ, Muniesa-Herrero MP. et al. Mid-term results for metaphyseal sleeves in revision knee surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (12) 3779-3785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Fedorka CJ, Chen AF, Pagnotto MR, Crosset LS, Klatt BA. Revision total knee arthroplasty with porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves provides radiographic ingrowth and stable fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (05) 1500-1505
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chalmers BP, Desy NM, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Taunton MJ. Survivorship of metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (05) 1565-1570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Zanirato A, Cavagnaro L, Basso M, Divano S, Felli L, Formica M. Metaphyseal sleeves in total knee arthroplasty revision: complications, clinical and radiological results. A systematic review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018; 138 (07) 993-1001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Barrack RL, Rorabeck C, Burt M, Sawhney J. Pain at the end of the stem after revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999; (367) 216-225
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE. Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; (257) 107-128
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Morgan-Jones R, Oussedik SI, Graichen H, Haddad FS. Zonal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (02) 147-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Bieger R, Huch K, Kocak S, Jung S, Reichel H, Kappe T. The influence of joint line restoration on the results of revision total knee arthroplasty: comparison between distance and ratio-methods. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2014; 134 (04) 537-541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Shen C, Lichstein PM, Austin MS, Sharkey PF, Parvizi J. Revision knee arthroplasty for bone loss: choosing the right degree of constraint. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (01) 127-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Mortazavi SM, Molligan J, Austin MS, Purtill JJ, Hozack WJ, Parvizi J. Failure following revision total knee arthroplasty: infection is the major cause. Int Orthop 2011; 35 (08) 1157-1164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ghomrawi HMK, Kane RL, Eberly LE, Bershadsky B, Saleh KJ. North American Knee Arthroplasty Revision (NAKAR) Study Group. Patterns of functional improvement after revision knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (12) 2838-2845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Schroer WC, Berend KR, Lombardi AV. et al. Why are total knees failing today? Etiology of total knee revision in 2010 and 2011. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (8, Suppl): 116-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar