Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2018; 31(07): 677-685
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1606564
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Comparative Analysis between Cone and Sleeve in Managing Severe Bone Defect during Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hyun Jung Kim
1   Department of Preventive Medicine, Institute for Evidence-based Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, The Republic of Korea
,
O-Sung Lee
2   Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Bundang Hospital, Seoul, The Republic of Korea
,
Seung Hoon Lee
3   Division of Orthopedics, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, The Republic of Korea
,
Yong Seuk Lee
3   Division of Orthopedics, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, The Republic of Korea
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

26 April 2017

04 August 2017

Publication Date:
14 September 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This review aims to compare the outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed using a tantalum cone and a titanium sleeve. A rigorous and systematic search was performed. Each of the selected studies was evaluated for methodological quality. Data were extracted according to the following: study design, level of evidence, cases enrolled, age, sex ratio, follow-up, involved part, bone defect, degree of constraint, augments (cone and/or sleeve), pre-clinical score, post-clinical score, radiological results, major complications, and endpoint analysis. Nineteen articles were included in the final analysis. The knee scores of the cone and sleeve groups were increased in all studies with or without statistical significance. For the radiological outcome, radiolucent line was seen in six cases in the cone group and in 15 cases in the sleeve group. Only a few specific augment-related complications were noted. Our results support the use of the newly devised augments in bone defect during revision TKA in terms of clinical and radiological outcome.

Keywords

revision total knee arthroplasty - bone defect - augment - cone - sleeve
 

  • References

  • 1 Thiele K, Perka C, Matziolis G, Mayr HO, Sostheim M, Hube R. Current failure mechanisms after knee arthroplasty have changed: polyethylene wear is less common in revision surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (09) 715-720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nelson CL, Vanushkina M, Irgit K, Strohecker K, Bowen TR. Stemmed femoral implants show lower failure rates in revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2015; 22 (05) 429-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Beckmann NA, Mueller S, Gondan M, Jaeger S, Reiner T, Bitsch RG. Treatment of severe bone defects during revision total knee arthroplasty with structural allografts and porous metal cones-a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (02) 249-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Shen C, Lichstein PM, Austin MS, Sharkey PF, Parvizi J. Revision knee arthroplasty for bone loss: choosing the right degree of constraint. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (01) 127-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dalury DF, Barrett WP. The use of metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2016; 23 (03) 545-548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 De Martino I, De Santis V, Sculco PK, D'Apolito R, Assini JB, Gasparini G. Tantalum cones provide durable mid-term fixation in revision TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (10) 3176-3182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Indelli PF, Giori N, Maloney W. Level of constraint in revision knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015; 8 (04) 390-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kamath AF, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty: a five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (03) 216-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sculco PK, Abdel MP, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. The management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty: rebuild, reinforce, and augment. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (1, Suppl A): 120-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Panegrossi G, Ceretti M, Papalia M, Casella F, Favetti F, Falez F. Bone loss management in total knee revision surgery. Int Orthop 2014; 38 (02) 419-427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Huten D. Femorotibial bone loss during revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013; 99 (1, Suppl): S22-S33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. ; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62 (10) 1006-1012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Jensen CL, Petersen MM, Schrøder HM, Lund B. Bone mineral density changes of the proximal tibia after revision total knee arthroplasty. A randomised study with the use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones. Int Orthop 2012; 36 (09) 1857-1863
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Agarwal S, Azam A, Morgan-Jones R. Metal metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee replacement. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (12) 1640-1644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Alexander GE, Bernasek TL, Crank RL, Haidukewych GJ. Cementless metaphyseal sleeves used for large tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (04) 604-607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Barnett SL, Mayer RR, Gondusky JS, Choi L, Patel JJ, Gorab RS. Use of stepped porous titanium metaphyseal sleeves for tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: short term results. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (06) 1219-1224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Brown NM, Bell JA, Jung EK, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG, Levine BR. The use of trabecular metal cones in complex primary and revision ttotal kknee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (9, Suppl): 90-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Howard JL, Kudera J, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Early results of the use of tantalum femoral cones for revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (05) 478-484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Huang R, Barrazueta G, Ong A. , et al. Revision total knee arthroplasty using metaphyseal sleeves at short-term follow-up. Orthopedics 2014; 37 (09) e804-e809
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Jensen CL, Winther N, Schrøder HM, Petersen MM. Outcome of revision total knee arthroplasty with the use of trabecular metal cone for reconstruction of severe bone loss at the proximal tibia. Knee 2014; 21 (06) 1233-1237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lachiewicz PF, Bolognesi MP, Henderson RA, Soileau ES, Vail TP. Can tantalum cones provide fixation in complex revision knee arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (01) 199-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 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 (01) 78-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Rao BM, Kamal TT, Vafaye J, Moss M. Tantalum cones for major osteolysis in revision knee replacement. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (08) 1069-1074
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Schmitz HC, Klauser W, Citak M, Al-Khateeb H, Gehrke T, Kendoff D. Three-year follow up utilizing tantal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (09) 1556-1560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Villanueva-Martínez M, De la Torre-Escudero B, Rojo-Manaute JM, Ríos-Luna A, Chana-Rodriguez F. Tantalum cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. A promising short-term result with 29 cones in 21 patients. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (06) 988-993
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bugler KE, Maheshwari R, Ahmed I, Brenkel IJ, Walmsley PJ. Metaphyseal sleeves for revision total knee arthroplasty: good short-term outcomes. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (11) 1990-1994
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Girerd D, Parratte S, Lunebourg A. , et al. 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 2016; 102 (04) 429-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Fosco M, Amendola L, Fantasia R, Pipino G, Tigani D. Revision total knee arthroplasty: experience with tantalum cones in severe bone loss. Eur Orthop Traumatol 2013; 4: 131-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 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 Pt 1): 131-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Haidukewych GJ, Hanssen A, Jones RD. Metaphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: indications and techniques. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2011; 19 (06) 311-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ponzio DY, Austin MS. Metaphyseal bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015; 8 (04) 361-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Qiu YY, Yan CH, Chiu KY, Ng FY. Review article: treatments for bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2012; 20 (01) 78-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Parratte S, Abdel MP, Lunebourg A. , et al. Revision total knee arthroplasty: the end of the allograft era?. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2015; 25 (04) 621-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Graichen H, Scior W, Strauch M. Direct, cementless, metaphyseal fixation in knee revision arthroplasty with sleeves-short-term results. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (12) 2256-2259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Bauman RD, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Limitations of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (03) 818-824
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar