Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 470, Issue 1, pp 199–204

Can Tantalum Cones Provide Fixation in Complex Revision Knee Arthroplasty?

  • Paul F. Lachiewicz
  • Michael P. Bolognesi
  • Robert A. Henderson
  • Elizabeth S. Soileau
  • Thomas Parker Vail
Symposium: Papers Presented at the Annual Meetings of The Knee Society

Abstract

Background

The best method for managing large bone defects during revision knee arthroplasty is unknown. Metaphyseal fixation using porous tantalum cones has been proposed for severe bone loss. Whether this approach achieves osseointegration with low complication rates is unclear.

Questions/purposes

We therefore asked: (1) What is the risk of infection in revision knee arthroplasty with large bone defects reconstructed with porous tantalum cones? (2) What is the rate of osseointegration with these cones? (3) What is the rate of loosening and reoperation? (4) Is knee function restored?

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 27 patients who had 33 tantalum cones (nine femoral, 24 tibial) implanted during 27 revision knee arthroplasties. There were 14 women and 13 men with a mean age of 64.6 years. Preoperative diagnosis was reimplantation for infection in 13 knees, aseptic loosening in 10, and wear-osteolysis in four. Patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically using the score systems of the Knee Society and followed for a minimum of 2 years (mean, 3.3 years; range, 2–5.7 years).

Results

One knee with two cones was removed for infection. All but one cone showed osseointegration. One knee was revised for femoral cone and component loosening. There was one reoperation for femoral shaft fracture and one for superficial dehiscence. The mean Knee Society pain score improved from 40 points preoperatively to 79 points postoperatively. The mean function score improved from 19 points to 47 points.

Conclusions

Our observations suggest metaphyseal fixation with tantalum cones can be achieved. Longer-term followup is required to determine whether the fixation is durable.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

References

  1. 1.
    Backstein D, Safir O, Gross A. Management of bone loss: structural grafts in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;446:104–112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barrack RL, Jennings RW, Wolfe MW, Bertot AJ. The Coventry award: the value of preoperative aspiration before total knee revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;345:8–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauman RD, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Limitations of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:818–824.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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;81:907–914.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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;83:404–411.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duff GP, Lachiewicz PF, Kelley SS. Aspiration of the knee joint before revision arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;331:132–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Use of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty in knees with severe tibial bone loss. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:2640–2647.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ewald FC. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:9–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Findlay DM, Welldon K, Atkins GJ, Howie DW, Zannettino AC, Bobyn D. The proliferation and phenotypic expression of human osteoblasts on tantalum metal. Biomaterials. 2004;25:2215–2227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ghazavi MT, Stockley I, Yee G, Davis A, Gross AE. Reconstruction of massive bone defects with allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:17–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hockman DE, Ammeen D, Engh GA. Augments and allografts in revision total knee arthroplasty: usage and outcome using one modular revision prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:35–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    Jacobs C, Christensen CP, Berend ME. Static and mobile antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers for the management of prosthetic joint infection. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17:356–368.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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;24:1086–1092.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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;90:78–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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):131–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parvizi J, Ghanem E, Sharkey P, Aggarwal A, Burnett RSJ, Barrack RL. Diagnosis of infected total knee: findings of a multicenter database. Clinical Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2628–2633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ries MD. Impacted cancellous autograft for contained bone defects in total knee arthroplasty. Am J Knee Surg. 1996;9:51–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schildhauer TA, Peter E, Muhr G, Koller M. Activation of human leukocytes on tantalum trabecular metal in comparison to commonly used orthopedic metal implant materials. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2009;88:332–341.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schildhauer TA, Robie B, Muhr G, Koller M. Bacterial adherence to tantalum versus commonly used orthopedic metallic implant materials. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20:476–484.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Welldon KJ, Atkins GJ, Howie DW, Findlay DM. Primary human osteoblasts grow into porous tantalum and maintain an osteoblastic phenotype. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2008;84:691–701.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul F. Lachiewicz
    • 1
    • 3
  • Michael P. Bolognesi
    • 2
  • Robert A. Henderson
    • 2
  • Elizabeth S. Soileau
    • 3
  • Thomas Parker Vail
    • 4
  1. 1.Durham VA Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Division of Orthopaedic SurgeryDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Chapel Hill Orthopedics Surgery & Sports MedicineChapel HillUSA
  4. 4.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of California at San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations