Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Bone loss following knee arthroplasty: potential treatment options

  • Knee Revision Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

Modular augmentation may significantly reduce the need for allografting, whose complications appear to limit the long-term success of knee revisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alexander GE, Bernasek TL, Crank RL, Haidukewych GJ (2013) Cementless metaphyseal sleeves used for large tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 28:604–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Huten D (2013) Femorotibial bone loss during revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99(1 Suppl):S22–S33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rao BM, Kamal TT, Vafaye J, Moss M (2013) Tantalum cones for major osteolysis in revision knee replacement. Bone Joint J 95:1069–1074

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dalury DF, Pomeroy DL, Gorab RS, Adams MJ (2013) Why are total knee arthroplasties being revised? J Arthroplast 28(8 Suppl):120–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kasahara Y, Majima T, Kimura S, Nishiike O, Uchida J (2013) What are the causes of revision total knee arthroplasty in Japan? Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:1533–1538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gallo J, Goodman SB, Konttinen YT, Wimmer MA, Holinka M (2013) Osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty: a review of pathogenetic mechanisms. Acta Biomater 9:8046–8058

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wiggers EC, Johnson W, Tucci M, Benghuzzi H (2011) Biochemical and morphological changes associated with macrophages and osteoclasts when challenged with infection—biomed 2011. Biomed Sci Instrum 47:183–188

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen J, Cui Y, Li X, Miao X, Wen Z, Xue Y, Tian J (2013) Risk factors for deep infection after total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133:675–687

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Goldvasser D, Marchie A, Bragdon LK, Bragdon CR, Weidenhielm L, Malchau H (2013) Incidence of osteolysis in total knee arthroplasty: comparison between radiographic and retrieval analysis. J Arthroplast 28:201–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kendrick BJ, Simpson DJ, Kaptein BL, Valstar ER, Gill HS, Murray DW, Price AJ (2011) Polyethylene wear of mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement at 20 years. J Bone Joint Surg 93:470–475

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Zeng Y, Shen B, Yang J, Zhou ZK, Kang PD, Pei FX (2013) Is there reduced polyethylene wear and longer survival when using a mobile-bearing design in total knee replacement? A meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. Bone Joint J 95:1057–1063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lachiewicz PF, Geyer MR (2011) The use of highly cross-linked polyethylene in total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 19:143–151

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schiavone Panni A, Vasso M, Cerciello S, Maccauro G (2011) Metallosis following knee arthroplasty: a histological and immunohistochemical study. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol 24:711–719

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Citak M, Gessmann J, Fehmer T, Russe O, Schildhauer TA, Seybold D (2011) Two-stage revision of infected total knee arthroplasty using a distraction spacer. Technol Health Care 19:167–171

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson AJ, Sayeed SA, Naziri Q, Khanuja HS, Mont MA (2012) Minimizing dynamic knee spacer complications in infected revision arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:220–227

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 20:2445–2453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nettrour JF, Polikandriotis JA, Bernasek TL, Gustke KA, Lyons ST (2013) Articulating spacers for the treatment of infected total knee arthroplasty: effect of antibiotic combinations and concentrations. Orthopedics 36:19–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rogers BA, Middleton FR, Shearwood-Porter N, Kinch S, Roques A, Bradley NW, Browne M (2011) Does cyclical loading affect the elution of antibiotics from articulating cement knee spacers? J Bone Joint Surg 93:914–920

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Silvestre A, Almeida F, Renovell P, Morante E, López R (2013) Revision of infected total knee arthroplasty: two-stage reimplantation using an antibiotic-impregnated static spacer. Clin Orthop Surg 5:180–187

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Engh GA, Ammeen D (1998) Classification and preoperative radiographic evaluation: knee. Orthop Clin North Am 29:205–217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rand JA (1991) Bone deficiency in total knee arthroplasty: use of metal wedge augmentation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 271:63–71

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Daines BK, Dennis DA (2013) Management of bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 62:341–348

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gudnason A, Milbrink J, Hailer NP (2011) Implant survival and outcome after rotating-hinge total knee revision arthroplasty: a minimum 6-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:1601–1607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kuchinad RA, Garbedian S, Rogers BA, Backstein D, Safir O, Gross AE (2011) The use of structural allograft in primary and revision knee arthroplasty with bone loss. Adv Orthop. doi:10.4061/2011/578952

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schmitz HC, Klauser W, Citak M, Al-Khateeb H, Gehrke T, Kendoff D (2013) Three-year follow up utilizing tantal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 28:1556–1560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Vasso M, Beaufils P, Schiavone Panni A (2013) Constraint choice in revision knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 37:1279–1284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hanna SA, Aston WJ, de Roeck NJ, Gough-Palmer A, Powles DP (2011) Cementless revision TKA with bone grafting of osseous defects restores bone stock with a low revision rate at 4 to 10 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:3164–3171

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hongvilai S, Tanavalee A (2012) Review article: management of bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. J Med Assoc Thai 95(Suppl 10):S230–S237

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Naim S, Toms AD (2013) Impaction bone grafting for tibial defects in knee replacement surgery. Results at two years. Acta Orthop Belg 79:205–210

    PubMed  Google 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 84:387–391

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Howard JL, Kudera J, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2011) Early results of the use of tantalum femoral cones for revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:478–484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lachiewicz PF, Bolognesi MP, Henderson RA, Soileau ES, Vail TP (2012) Can tantalum cones provide fixation in complex revision knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:199–204

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Haidukewych GJ, Hanssen A, Jones RD (2011) Metaphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: indications and techniques. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 19:311–318

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Beckmann J, Lüring C, Springorum R, Köck FX, Grifka J, Tingart M (2011) Fixation of revision TKA: a review of the literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:872–879

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Panni AS, Vasso M, Cerciello S (2012) Modular augmentation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-2258-1

    Google Scholar 

  36. Steens W, Loehr JF, Wodtke J, Katzer A (2008) Morselized bone grafting in revision arthroplasty of the knee: a retrospective analysis of 34 reconstructions after 2–9 years. Acta Orthop 79:683–688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lotke PA, Carolan GF, Puri N (2006) Impaction grafting for bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 446:99–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ghazavi MT, Stockley I, Yee G, Davis A, Gross AE (1997) Reconstruction of massive bone defects with allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:17–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Backstein D, Safir O, Gross A (2006) Management of bone loss: structural grafts in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 446:104–112

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 83:404–411

    Google Scholar 

  41. Bauman RD, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2009) Limitations of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:818–824

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Brand MG, Daley RJ, Ewald FC, Scott RD (1989) Tibial tray augmentation with modular metal wedges for tibial bone stock deficiency. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:71–79

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Haas SB, Insall JN, Montgomery W 3rd, Windsor RE (1995) Revision total knee arthroplasty with use of modular components with stems inserted without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:1700–1707

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Werle JR, Goodman SB, Imrie SN (2002) Revision total knee arthroplasty using large distal femoral augments for severe metaphyseal bone deficiency: a preliminary study. Orthopedics 25:325–327

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Patel JV, Masonis JL, Guerin J, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH (2004) The fate of augments to treat type-2 bone defects in revision knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 86:195–199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Wood GC, Naudie DD, MacDonald SJ, McCalden RW, Bourne RB (2009) Results of press-fit stems in revision knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:810–817

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Meneghini RM, Lewallen DG, Hansesen AD (2008) Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:78–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Malhotra R, Garg B, Kumar V (2011) Dual massive skeletal allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. Indian J Orthop 45:368–371

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google 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 20:78–86

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wang JW, Hsu CH, Huang CC, Lin PC, Chen WS (2013) Reconstruction using femoral head allograft in revision total knee replacement: an experience in Asian patients. Bone Joint J 95-B:643–648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Richards CJ, Garbuz DS, Pugh L, Masri BA (2011) Revision total knee arthroplasty: clinical outcome comparison with and without the use of femoral head structural allograft. J Arthroplast 26:1299–1304

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine and Science for Health, University of Molise, Via Francesco De Sanctis, Campobasso, Italy

    Michele Vasso, Simone Cerciello & Alfredo Schiavone Panni

  2. Department of Orthopedics and Trumatology, Versailles “Andrè Mignot” Hospital, Versailles Saint Quentin University, Rue de Versailles 177, Le Chesnay, France

    Philippe Beaufils

Authors
  1. Michele Vasso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philippe Beaufils
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simone Cerciello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alfredo Schiavone Panni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michele Vasso.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vasso, M., Beaufils, P., Cerciello, S. et al. Bone loss following knee arthroplasty: potential treatment options. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134, 543–553 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-1941-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-1941-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation