Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2016; 29(08): 627-633
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1593623
Special Focus Section
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Can Preoperative Radiographic Analysis Help Us Evaluate When to Use Metaphyseal Cones?

Anton Khlopas
1   Department of Orthopedics, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Michael A. Mont
1   Department of Orthopedics, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Morad Chughtai
2   Center for Joint Preservation and Replacement, Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopaedics, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Robert Molloy
1   Department of Orthopedics, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Prem N. Ramkumar
1   Department of Orthopedics, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Steven F. Harwin
3   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

01 August 2016

28 August 2016

Publication Date:
17 October 2016 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be challenging in the setting of bone loss. Previously, severe bone loss was managed with impaction grafting and structural allografts; however, these had limited success. Recently, metaphyseal cones have been developed as useful adjuncts with good early outcomes. Presently, there are no published guidelines on how to preoperatively predict the need for metaphyseal cone implantation radiographically. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate how well preoperative radiographs were able to predict the use of cones in a small series of patients undergoing revision TKA. In this study, three patients who were undergoing a revision TKA were evaluated radiographically. For each case, we used the Knee Society Roentgenographic Evaluation and Scoring System to assess for osteolysis and bone loss or defects. The intraoperative findings of bone loss that may have necessitated the use of cones were described and correlated with preoperative evaluation. The first patient had obvious osteolysis of both tibia and femur on anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs. The preoperative radiographs predicted the need for a cone in both tibia and femur. The intraoperative findings correlated with preoperative radiographs. In the second case, there was obvious osteolysis of the tibia on AP and lateral films. The surgeon predicted the need of a tibial cone for tibial component placement based on these X-rays. The intraoperative findings confirmed this. In the third case, the patient had obvious osteolysis surrounding tibial component on both AP and lateral radiographs. The preoperative radiographs revealed the need for tibial cone only. Intraoperatively, the tibial findings correlated with the preoperative radiographs, but the femur revealed a large defect which required use of a metaphyseal cone. All three patients had marked radiolucencies and osteolysis surrounding the tibial component, and one of the three patients surrounding the femoral components. In this case series, the radiographs predicted the need for four out of five cones. The Knee Society Roentgenographic Evaluation and Scoring System may be a potential option for a radiographic evaluation method to predict the need for cones in revision TKA. It is hoped that this study will provide a starting point for future larger scale studies to assess the predictive need for cones in revision TKA.

Keywords

metaphyseal cone - revision total knee arthroplasty - bone defect - bone loss - radiographic
 

  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bush JL, Wilson JB, Vail TP. Management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 452 (452) 186-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ritter MA, Harty LD. Medial screws and cement: a possible mechanical augmentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (5) 587-589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bauman RD, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Limitations of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (3) 818-824
    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 (1) 78-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rao BM, Kamal TT, Vafaye J, Moss M. Tantalum cones for major osteolysis in revision knee replacement. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (8) 1069-1074
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 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
  • 20 Engh G. Bone defect classification. In: Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1997: 63-120
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Elmallah RK, Scuderi GR, Jauregui JJ , et al; Knee Society Roentgenographic Workgroup. Radiographic evaluations of revision total knee arthroplasty: a plea for uniform assessments. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (11) 1981-1984
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Meneghini RM, Mont MA, Backstein DB, Bourne RB, Dennis DA, Scuderi GR. Development of a modern knee society radiographic evaluation system and methodology for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (12) 2311-2314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ponzio DY, Austin MS. Metaphyseal bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015; 8 (4) 361-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 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 (4) 429-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar