Bone loss management in total knee revision surgery
- 805 Downloads
Bone stock reconstruction in TKR surgery is one of the biggest challenges for the surgeon. According to some, authors causes of bone stock loosening are multiple, including stress shielding, osteolysis from wear, septic or aseptic loosening, and bone loss caused by a poorly balanced implant. Moreover, bone loss may be iatrogenic at the time of implant removal, indicating that bone preservation during implant removal is critical.
Defect localization and extension affect the surgeon’s decisions about the choice of the surgical technique and the type of plant to be taken. Today there are several options available for bone deficiency treatment. The treatment choice is undoubtedly linked to the cause of revision, experience and personal philosophy, but it is necessary to consider also the patient's age, expectations of life, functional requirements and bone quality. Many authors prefer bone stock reconstruction techniques in patients with high bone quality and a better quality of life with more prospects. In patients with lower lease on life and lower bone quality the best bone replacement techniques are of modular systems, wedges, and augments. In cases with septic bone loss, more or less extended, different authors recommend reducing bone grafts in favor of modular prostheses to reduce the risk of graft contamination.
All of these techniques have been shown to be durable in midterm outcomes, but concerns exist for a number of reasons, including disease transmission, resorption, fracture, immune reaction to allograft, the cost of custom prostheses, the inability to modify the construct intraoperatively and the overall technical challenge of applying these techniques.
The choice between different surgical options depends on bone defect dimension and characteristics but are also patient-related. Reestablishment of well-aligned and stable implants is necessary for successful reconstruction, but this can’t be accomplished without a sufficient restoration of an eventual bone loss.
KeywordsBone loss Total knee revision Knee Impaction grafting Metaphyseal sleeves Cones
- 3.Engh GA, Ammen DJ (1995) Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect 48:167–175Google Scholar
- 6.Reish TG, Scott WN, Math KR (2004) Osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty diagnosis by multi-detector computer tomography. Proceedings of American Academy Orthopaedic Surgery, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- 7.Lucey SD, Scuderi GR, Kelly MA et al (2000) A practical approach to dealing with bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthop 23:1036–1041Google Scholar
- 8.Engh GA, Herzwurm PJ, Parks NL (1997) Treatment of major defects of bone with bulk allografts and stemmed components during total knee arthroplasty. J Bone and Joint Surg Am 79(7):1030–1039Google Scholar
- 14.Dorr LD (1989) Bone grafts for bone loss with total knee replacement. Orthop Clin N Am 20:179–187Google Scholar
- 15.Fosco M, Ben Ayad R, Luca A et al. (2012) Management of bone loss in primary and revision knee replacement. In Fokter SK (ed) Recent advances in hip and knee arthroplasty. InTech, Italy, pp 203–222Google Scholar
- 18.Suarez MA, Murcia A, Maestro A (2002) Filling of segmental bone defects in revision knee arthroplasty using morsellized bone grafts contained within a metal mesh. Acta Orthop Belg 68:163–167Google Scholar
- 20.Whiteside LA (1998) Morselized allografting in revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthop 21(9):1041–1043Google Scholar
- 26.Tang T, Dai K, Zhu N, Chen Y (2001) A histomorphometric and molecular study on stress adaptability of freeze-dried bone allograft. Chin Med J (Engl) 114:1189–1192Google Scholar
- 27.Yan CH, Chiu KY, Ng TP, Ng FY (2010) Revision total hip arthroplasty with femoral impaction bone grafting. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 18:303–308Google Scholar
- 33.Brooks PJ, Walker PS, Scott RD (1984) Tibial component fixation in deficient tibial bone stock. Clin Orthop Related Res 184:302–308Google Scholar
- 36.Pagnano MW, Trousdle RT, Rand JA (1995) Tibial wedge augmentation for bone deficiency in total knee arthroplasty. A follow-up study Clin Orthop Related Res 321:151–155Google Scholar
- 37.Takagi H, Iwata H, Ishiguro N, Kojima T, Oguchi T (2001) Tibial wedge augmentation in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Rheumatol 13:289–292Google Scholar
- 40.Stuchin SA (1993) Allografting in total knee replacement arthroplasty. Semin Arthroplast 4:117–122Google Scholar
- 41.Tigani D, Sabbioni G, Raimondi A (2009) Early aseptic loosening of a porous tantalum knee prosthesis. Chirurgia Organi Movimento 93:187–191Google Scholar
- 45.Eldridge J, Hubble M, Nelson K, Smith E, Learmonth I (1997) The effect of bone chip size on initial stability following femoral impaction grafting. J Bone and Joint Surg Br 79(Suppl 3):S364Google Scholar
- 55.Jafarim A, Coyle C, Huang R, Austin M, Orozco F, Ong A (2011) Revision total knee arthroplasty using metaphyseal sleeves and short term follow up. Lombardi AV (ed) Annual Meeting American Academy of Orthophaedic Surgeons. San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- 56.Pagnottom, Fedorka J, McGough R, Crossett I, Klatt B, Keating M (2011) Revision total knee replacement with porous coated metaphyseal sleeves. Lombardi AV (ed) Annual meeting 2011 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons San Diego.Google Scholar