Bone loss following knee arthroplasty: potential treatment options
- 870 Downloads
The management of bone loss is a crucial aspect of the revision knee arthroplasty. Bone loss can hinder the correct positioning and alignment of the prosthetic components, and can prevent the achievement of a stable bone–implant interface. There is still controversy regarding the optimal management of knee periprosthetic bone loss, especially in large defects for which structural grafts, metal or tantalum augments, tantalum cones, porous metaphyseal sleeves, and special prostheses have been advocated. The aim of this review was to analyze all possible causes of bone loss and the most advanced strategies for managing bony deficiency within the knee joint reconstruction.
Materials and methods
Most significant and recent papers about the management of bone defects during revision knee arthroplasty were carefully analyzed and reviewed to report the most common causes of bone loss and the most effective strategies to manage them.
Modular metal and tantalum augmentation showed to provide more stable and durable knee revisions compared to allografts, limited by complications such as graft failure, fracture and resorption. Moreover, modular augmentation may considerably shorten operative times with a potential decrease of complications, above all infection which has been frequently associated to the use of allografts.
Modular augmentation may significantly reduce the need for allografting, whose complications appear to limit the long-term success of knee revisions.
KeywordsRevision knee arthroplasty Knee reconstruction Bone loss Augments Tantalum Allografts
Conflict of interest
- 16.Romanò CL, Gala L, Logoluso N, Romanò D, Drago L (2012) Two-stage revision of septic knee prosthesis with articulating knee spacers yields better infection eradication rate than one-stage or two-stage revision with static spacers. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:2445–2453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Hilgen V, Citak M, Vettorazzi E, Haasper C, Day K, Amling M, Gehrke T, Gebauer M (2013) 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 84:387–391PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Clatworthy MG, Ballance J, Brick GW, Chandler HP, Gross AE (2011) The use of structural allograft for uncontained defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: a minimum five-year review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:404–411Google Scholar
- 49.Qiu YY, Yan CH, Chiu KY, Ng FY (2012) Review article: treatments for bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg 20:78–86Google Scholar