Aseptic Loosening of Porous Metaphyseal Sleeves and Tantalum Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Bone loss often complicates revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Management of metaphyseal defects varies, with no clearly superior technique. Two commonly utilized options for metaphyseal defect management include porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves and tantalum cones. A systematic review was conducted according to the international Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We combined search terms “Total knee arthroplasty” AND/OR “Sleeve,” “Cone” as either keywords or medical subject heading (MeSH) terms in multiple databases according to PRISMA recommendations. All retrieved articles were reviewed and assessed using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 27 studies (12 sleeves and 15 cones) of revision TKAs were included. In the 12 studies on sleeve implantation in revision TKAs, 1,617 sleeves were implanted in 1,133 revision TKAs in 1,025 patients. The overall rate of reoperation was 110/1,133 (9.7%) and the total rate of aseptic loosening per sleeve was 13/1,617 (0.8%). In the 15 studies on tantalum cone implantation in revision TKAs, 701 cones were implanted into 620 revision TKAs in 612 patients. The overall rate of reoperation was 116/620 (18.7%), and the overall rate of aseptic loosening per cone was 12/701 (1.7%). Rates of aseptic loosening of the two implants were found to be similar, while the rate of reoperation was nearly double in revision TKAs utilizing tantalum cones. Variability in the selected studies and the likely multifactorial nature of failure do not allow for any definitive conclusions to be made. This review elucidates the necessity for additional literature examining revision TKA implants.

Keywords

total knee arthroplasty - total knee arthroplasty revision - metaphyseal sleeve - tantalum cone

Publication History

Received: 18 September 2018

Accepted: 13 December 2019

Article published online:
19 February 2020

• References

• 1 Bosco JA, Alvarado CM, Slover JD, Iorio R, Hutzler LH. Decreasing total joint implant costs and physician specific cost variation through negotiation. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (04) 678-680
• 2 Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (10) 2606-2612
• 3 Mabry TM, Hanssen AD. The role of stems and augments for bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 04, Suppl 1): 56-60
• 4 Radnay CS, Scuderi GR. Management of bone loss: augments, cones, offset stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446 (446) 83-92
• 5 Bayliss LE, Culliford D, Monk AP. et al. The effect of patient age at intervention on risk of implant revision after total replacement of the hip or knee: a population-based cohort study. Lancet 2017; 389 (10077): 1424-1430
• 6 Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect 1999; 48: 167-175
• 7 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
• 8 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 (04) 387-391
• 9 Rao BM, Kamal TT, Vafaye J, Moss M. Tantalum cones for major osteolysis in revision knee replacement. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B [phone]
• 10 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
• 11 Girerd D, Parratte S, Lunebourg A. et al. Total knee arthroplasty revision with trabecular tantalum cones: preliminary retrospective study of 51 patients from two centres with a minimal 2-year follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2016; 102 (04) 429-433
• 12 Huten D. Femorotibial bone loss during revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013; 99 (1, Suppl): S22-S33
• 13 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
• 14 Morgan-Jones R, Oussedik SI, Graichen H, Haddad FS. Zonal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B [phone]
• 15 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
• 16 Cohen R. A porous tantalum trabecular metal: basic science. Am J Orthop 2002; 31 (04) 216-217
• 17 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
• 18 Nehme A, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Modular porous metal augments for treatment of severe acetabular bone loss during revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (429) 201-208
• 19 Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Acetabular revision using a trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with a pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21 (06, Suppl 2): 87-90
• 20 Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. The use of a trabecular metal acetabular component and trabecular metal augment for severe acetabular defects. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21 (06, Suppl 2) 83-86
• 21 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. ; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62 (10) 1006-1012
• 22 Agarwal S, Azam A, Morgan-Jones R. Metal metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee replacement. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (12) 1640-1644
• 23 Alexander GE, Bernasek TL, Crank RL, Haidukewych GJ. Cementless metaphyseal sleeves used for large tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (04) 604-607
• 24 Huang R, Barrazueta G, Ong A. et al. Revision total knee arthroplasty using metaphyseal sleeves at short-term follow-up. Orthopedics 2014; 37 (09) e804-e809
• 25 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
• 26 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
• 27 Graichen H, Scior W, Strauch M. Direct, cementless, metaphyseal fixation in knee revision arthroplasty with sleeves-short-term results. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (12) 2256-2259
• 28 Dalury DF, Pomeroy DL, Gorab RS, Adams MJ. Why are total knee arthroplasties being revised?. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (8, Suppl): 120-121
• 29 Gøttsche D, Lind T, Christiansen T, Schrøder HM. Cementless metaphyseal sleeves without stem in revision total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2016; 136 (12) 1761-1766
• 30 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
• 31 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
• 32 Fedorka CJ, Chen AF, Pagnotto MR. et al. 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
• 33 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
• 34 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
• 35 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
• 36 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
• 37 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
• 38 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
• 39 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 (09) 1556-1560
• 40 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
• 41 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
• 42 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
• 43 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
• 44 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
• 45 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