Metaphyseal cones and sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty: Two sides of the same coin? Complications, clinical and radiological results—a systematic review of the literature
- 10 Downloads
Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is increasing of relevance in orthopaedic surgeon daily practice and this trend is likely to continue in the years ahead. The aim of this systematic review of English literature is to summarize and compare indications, complications, clinical and radiological results of metaphyseal cones and sleeves in management of bone loss in rTKA. Retrospective or prospective studies with at least 1 year of follow-up (FU) were included. The PRISMA 2009 flowchart and checklist were considered to edit the review. Clinical and radiological results, rates of intraoperative fractures, aseptic loosening, periprosthetic joint infection, septic failure, reoperations and re-revisions were extrapolated by the papers. Thirty-seven articles were included in the systematic review. Results of 927 cones (mean FU of 3.6 ± 1.4 years) and 1801 sleeves (mean FU of 4.5 ± 1.6 years) were analysed. The studies showed good clinical and functional outcomes. Cones and sleeves allowed a stable metaphyseal fixation. The aseptic survivorship of the implants was 97.3% in cones group and 97.8% in sleeves group. Metaphyseal cones and sleeves represent a viable option in management of type IIb and III AORI bone defects in aseptic and septic TKAr with overlapping survival rate. Further high-quality long-term studies would better clarify complications, clinical and radiological results of these promising techniques in revision total knee arthroplasty.
KeywordsRevision total knee arthroplasty Bone defect Metaphyseal sleeves Metaphyseal cones Results Complications
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 1.Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E et al (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89(4):780Google Scholar
- 4.Engh GA, Parks NL (1997) The management of bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Insta Course Lect 46:227–236Google Scholar
- 5.Mancuso F, Beltrame A, Colombo E et al (2017) Management of metaphyseal bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. Acta Biomed 88(2-S):98–111Google Scholar
- 8.Pour AE, Parvizi J, Slenker N, Purtill JJ, Sharkey PF (2007) Rotating hinged total knee replacement: use with caution. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89(8):1735–1741Google Scholar
- 11.Bonanzinga T, Gehrke T, Zahar A, Zaffagnini S, Marcacci M, Haasper C (2017) Are trabecular metal cones a valid option to treat metaphyseal bone defects in complex primary and revision knee arthroplasty? Joints 6(1):58–64Google Scholar
- 13.OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group (2016) The Oxford levels of evidence 2. Oxford center for evidence-based medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653. Accessed Aug 2018
- 21.Girerd D, Parratte S, Lunebourg A, Boureau F, Ollivier M, Pasquier G, Putman S, Migaud H, Argenson JN (2016) 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 102(4):429–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 49.Watters TS, Martin JR, Levy DL, Yang CC, Kim RH, Dennis DA (2017) Porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves for severe femoral and tibial bone loss in revision TKA. J Arthroplasty S0883–5403(17):30536–30543Google Scholar
- 50.Ewald FC (1989) The knee society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12Google Scholar
- 52.Cavagnaro L, Formica M, Basso M, Zanirato A, Divano S, Felli L (2018) Femoral revision with primary cementless stems: a systematic review of the literature. Musculoskelet Surg 102(1):1–9Google Scholar