Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 468, Issue 10, pp 2739–2745 | Cite as

Do Porous Tantalum Implants Help Preserve Bone?: Evaluation of Tibial Bone Density Surrounding Tantalum Tibial Implants in TKA

  • Alicia K. Harrison
  • Terence J. Gioe
  • Christine Simonelli
  • Penny J. Tatman
  • Mary C. Schoeller
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

TKA with conventional metal-backed tibial implants subjects the tibial metaphysis to stress shielding, with resultant loss of bone density.

Questions/purposes

We hypothesized tibial bone mineral density in patients with porous tantalum (trabecular metal) tibial baseplates would (1) more closely parallel tibial bone mineral density in the nonoperative control limb and (2) be better maintained than in conventional historical controls.

Patients and Methods

We prospectively followed 41 patients (35 men, six women) 60 years of age or younger undergoing TKA with uncemented trabecular metal tibial components. Patients underwent dual-energy xray absorptiometry scans of both proximal tibiae preoperatively and at 2 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. We determined bone mineral density in three selected regions of interest (Zone 1, between the pegs; Zone 2, beneath the pegs; Zone 3, directly below entire baseplate). Precision analysis revealed a precision error of 4% or less for each region of interest, indicating adequate power to detect bone mineral density changes of 8% or greater.

Results

Bone mineral density percent change was different between the operative and nonoperative knees only in Zone 3 and only at 2 months. There was no change in bone mineral density in any zone in the nonoperative knee at any time. Only in Zone 3 did the bone mineral density decrease at 2 months in the operative knee.

Conclusions

Trabecular metal implants appear to maintain tibial bone mineral density in a parallel fashion to the nonoperative limb in this population and better than historical controls.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Patricia Knickerbocker and Mary Schoeller, RT(R), CDT, for assistance with this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Abu-Rajab RB, Watson WS, Walker B, Roberts J, Gallacher SJ, Meek RM. Peri-prosthetic bone mineral density after total knee arthroplasty: cemented versus cementless fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:606–613.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauman RD, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Limitations of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:818–824.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bohr HH, Lund B. Bone mineral density of the proximal tibia following uncemented arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1987;2:309–312.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bourne RB, Finlay JB. The influence of tibial component intramedullary stems and implant-cortex contact on the strain distribution of the proximal tibia following total knee arthroplasty: an in vitro study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986; 208:95–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gioe TJ, Novak C, Sinner P, Ma W, Mehle S. Knee arthroplasty in the young patient: survival in a community registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;464:83–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harrysson OL, Robertsson O, Nayfeh JF. Higher cumulative revision rate of knee arthroplasties in younger patients with osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 421:162–168.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henricson A, Linder L, Nilsson KG. A trabecular metal tibial component in total knee replacement in patients younger than 60 years: a two-year radiostereophotogrammetric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1585–1593.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Implex Corp. Hedrocel: A Structural Biomaterial. Allendale, NJ: Implex Corp; 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:13–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klein GR, Levine HB, Hartzband MA. Removal of a well-fixed trabecular metal monoblock tibial component. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:619–622.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K, Chan N, Lau E, Halpern M. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1487–1497.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laskin RS. Session III: Total knee replacement in young patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002; 404:100–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levitz CL, Lotke PA, Karp JS. Long-term changes in bone mineral density following total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;321:68–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lonner JH, Klotz M, Levitz C, Lotke PA. Changes in bone density after cemented total knee arthroplasty: influence of stem design. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:107–111.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mazess RB. On aging bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;165:239–252.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Lu JF, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care. 1994;32:40–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993;31:247–263.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Keefe TJ, Winter S, Lewallen DG, Robertson DD, Poggie RA. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of a monoblock tibial component. J Arthroplasty. 2009 July 27 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Petersen MM. Bone mineral measurements at the knee using dual photon and dual energy x-ray absorptiometry: methodological evaluation and clinical studies focusing on adaptive bone remodeling following lower extremity fracture, total knee arthroplasty, and partial versus total meniscectomy. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 2000;293:1–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Petersen MM, Nielsen PT, Lauritzen JB, Lund B. Changes in bone mineral density of the proximal tibia after uncemented total knee arthroplasty: a 3-year follow-up of 25 knees. Acta Orthop Scand. 1995;66:513–516.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robertsson O, Dunbar MJ, Knutson K, Lidgren L. Past incidence and future demand for knee arthroplasty in Sweden: a report from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register regarding the effect of past and future population changes on the number of arthroplasties performed. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:376–380.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L. The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register 1975–1997: an update with special emphasis on 41,223 knees operated on in 1988–1997. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72:503–513.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sanchez Marquez JM, Del Sel N, Leali A, Gonzalez Della Valle A. Case reports: Tantalum debris dispersion during revision of a tibial component for TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:1107–1110.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Seitz P, Ruegsegger P, Gschwend N, Dubs L. Changes in local bone density after knee arthroplasty: the use of quantitative computed tomography. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987;69:407–411.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Soininvaara TA, Miettinen HJ, Jurvelin JS, Suomalainen OT, Alhava EM, Kroger HP. Periprosthetic tibial bone mineral density changes after total knee arthroplasty: one-year follow-up study of 69 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75:600–605.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang CJ, Wang JW, Ko JY, Weng LH, Huang CC. Three-year changes in bone mineral density around the knee after a six-month course of oral alendronate following total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:267–272.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alicia K. Harrison
    • 1
  • Terence J. Gioe
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christine Simonelli
    • 3
  • Penny J. Tatman
    • 4
  • Mary C. Schoeller
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of Minnesota Medical SchoolMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Minneapolis Veterans Administration Medical Center Section 112EMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.HealthEast Osteoporosis CenterSt PaulUSA
  4. 4.HealthEast Research and EducationSt PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations