Double Trabecular Tantalum Cones as an Alternative to Additive Technologies for Revision Knee Arthroplasty (A Case Series)

Cover Page

Abstract

Relevance. To compensate the extensive (AORI type III) bone defects, metal cones/ sleeves or massive allografts are used. In the absence of metaepiphyses, structural allografts or megaprostheses are usually used for tumor lesions of the bones. The aim of the study was to show the possibility of replacing extensive type III defects of the femur and tibia, covering the metaphysical and diaphyseal zones, with double tantalum cones.

Materials and Methods. The study included 13 patients undergone revision knee arthroplasty in 2015–2019. During the surgery, the primary fixation of the femoral or tibial component was achieved by the tight fit diaphyseal cone placement. The additional fixation is сarried out by cementing of the metaphyseal cone to the diaphyseal cone and the further osseointegration with the remaining bone of the metadiaphyseal zone. Fixation of the endoprosthesis component to the cones and to the bone is achived by use of the bone cement.

Results. The short-term outcomes of this technique in revision knee arthroplasty were evaluated in all patients. The results were evaluated as good if the primary stable fixation and the correct endoprosthesis components placement were achieved, the limb support ability and the knee function were restored, and there were no complications in the immediate postoperative period. In a year, one patient developed a relapse of infection in the operated knee. The endoprosthesis was removed and followed by knee arthrodesis after sanitation of the infection focus. Functional and radiological results one year after surgery were studied in 4 patients. The average functional scores were: by KSS 81 (good) and by WOMAC — 25 points (also good). On the control radiographs, the position of the components remained correct and stable with osseointegration of the cones in the metaphyseal and diaphyseal areas of the femur and tibia. In the remaining 8 patients, the time after surgery was less than a year. Their follow-up yet continued.

Conclusion. Thus, the tantalum cones technique is a reliable way to reconstruct extended metadiaphyseal defects in revision knee arthroplasty in the short-term prospect. The method can be considered as an alternative to megaprostheses, structural allografts, and individually made cones. But the long-term results of its application are still requiri ng further study.

About the authors

T. A. Kulyaba

Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: fake@neicon.ru

Taras A. Kulyaba — Dr. Sci. (Med.), Head of the Knee Pathology Department

St. Petersburg

Russian Federation

N. N. Kornilov

Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics;
Mechnikov North-Western State Medical University

Email: fake@neicon.ru

Nikolay N. Kornilov — Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Chair of Traumatology and Orthopedics, Head of Knee Surgery Department; Associate Professor, Department of Traumatology and Orthopedics

St. Petersburg

Russian Federation

A. V. Kazemirskiy

Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: fake@neicon.ru

Alexander V. Kazemirskiy — Cand. Sci. (Med.), Orthopaedic Surgeon

St. Petersburg

Russian Federation

G. Yu. Bovkis

Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Author for correspondence.
Email: dr.bovkis@mail.ru

Gennady Yu. Bovkis — Orthopaedic Surgeon

St. Petersburg

Russian Federation

D. V. Stafeev

Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: fake@neicon.ru

Dmitry V. Stafeev — Cand. Sci. (Med.), Orthopaedic Surgeon, Head of the Traumatology and Orthopedics Chair

St. Petersburg

Russian Federation

A. A. Cherny

Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: fake@neicon.ru

Alexander A. Cherny — Orthopaedic Surgeon

St. Petersburg

Russian Federation

I. I. Croitoru

Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: fake@neicon.ru

Iosif I. Croitoru — Cand. Sci. (Med.), Orthopaedic Surgeon

St. Petersburg

Russian Federation

A. I. Petukhov

Vreden National Medical Research Center of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: fake@neicon.ru

Alexey I. Petukhov — Cand. Sci. (Med.), Head of Knee Surgery Department,

St. Petersburg

Russian Federation

References

  1. Kurtz S.M., Ong K.L., Lau E., Bozic K.J. Impact of the economic downturn on total joint replacement demand in the United States: updated projections to 2021. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(8):624-630. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00285.
  2. Gioe T.J., Killeen K.K., Grimm K., Mehle S., Scheltema K. Why are total knee replacements revised?: analysis of early revision in a community knee implant registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(428):100-106.
  3. Mahomed N.N., Barret J., Katz J.N., Baron J.A., Wright J., Losina E. Epidimiology of total knee replacement in the United States Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(6):1222-1228.
  4. Корнилов Н.Н., Куляба Т.А., Филь А.С., Муравьева Ю.В. Данные регистра эндопротезирования коленного сустава РНИИТО им. Р.Р. Вредена за 2011−2013 годы. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2015;75(1):136-151.
  5. Kurtz S., Ong K., Lau E., Mowat F., Halpern M.. Projections of primary and revision knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4);780-785.
  6. Qiu Y.Y., Yan C.H., Chiu K.Y., Ng F.Y. Treatment for bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2012;20(1):78-86. doi: 10.1177/230949901202000116.
  7. Куляба Т.А., Корнилов Н.Н., Селин А.В., Разоренов В.Л., Кроитору И.И., Петухов А.И. и др. Способы компенсации костных дефектов при ревизионном эндопротезировании коленного сустава. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2011;(3):5-12.
  8. Lotke P.A., Carolan G.F., Puri N. Impaction grafting for bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;446:99-103. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000214414.06464.00.
  9. Huff T.W., Sculco T.P. Management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22 (7 Suppl 3):32-36. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36345.
  10. Panni A.S., Vasso M., Cerciello S. Modular augmentation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Trauml Arthrosc. 2013;21(12):2837-2843. doi: 10.1016/s0030-5898(05)70333-3.
  11. Patel J.V., Masonis J.L., Guerin J., Bourne R.B., Rorabeck C.H. The fate of augments to treat type-2 bone defects in revision knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86(2):195-199. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.86b2.13564.
  12. Бовкис Г.Ю., Куляба Т.А., Корнилов Н.Н. Компенсация дефектов метаэпифизов бедренной и большеберцовой костей при ревизионном эндопротезировании коленного сустава — способы и результаты их применения (обзор литературы). Травматология и ортопедия России. 2016;22(2):101-113. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2016-0-2-101-113.
  13. Куляба Т.А., Корнилов Н.Н., Румакин В.П., Бовкис Г.Ю., Сараев А.В. Принципы восполнения костных дефектов при реэндопротезировании коленного сустава. В кн.: Ревизионная артропластика коленного сустава. СПб.; 2016. С. 123-139.
  14. Radnay C.S., Scuderi G.R. Management of bone loss: augments, cones, offset stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;446:83-92. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000214437.57151.41.
  15. Schmitz H.C., 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(9):1556-1560. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.028.
  16. Мурылев В., Холодаев М., Елизаров П., Рубин Г., Музыченков А. Опыт применения в травматологии онкопротезов коленного сустава при обширных околосуставных костных дефектах. Врач. 2015;(1):64-68.
  17. De Martino I., De Santis V., Sculco P.K., D’Apolito R., Assini J.B., Gasparini G. Tantalum cones provide durable mid-term fixation in revision TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(10):3176-3182. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4338-2.
  18. Zanirato A., Formica M., Cavagnaro L., Divano S., Burastero G., Felli L. 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. Musculoskelet Surg. 2020;104(1):25-35. doi: 10.1007/s12306-019-00598-y.
  19. Morgan-Jones R., Oussedik S.I., Graichen H., Haddad F.S. Zonal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(2):147-149. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.34144.
  20. Lotke P.A., Garino J.P. Revision total knee arthroplasty. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1999. 517 p.
  21. Куляба Т.А., Корнилов Н.Н. Первичное тотальное эндопротезирование коленного сустава. Киев: Основа; 2019. 520 с.
  22. Beckmann N.A., Mueller S., Gondan M., Jaeger S., Reiner T., Bitsch R.G.. Treatment of severe bone defects during revision total knee arthroplasty with structural allografts and porous metal cones — a systematic review. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(2):249-253. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.016.
  23. Villanueva-Martínez M., De la Torre-Escudero B., Rojo-Manaute J.M., 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(6):988-993. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.09.003.
  24. Roach R.P., Clair A.J., Behery O.A., Thakkar S.C., Iorio R., Deshmukh A.J. Aseptic Loosening of Porous Metaphyseal Sleeves and Tantalum Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. J Knee Surg. 2020. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1701434. [Epub ahead of print].
  25. Girerd D., Parratte S., Lunebourg A., Boureau F., Ollivier M., Pasquier G. 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(4):429-433. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2016.02.010.
  26. Engh G.A., Herzwurm P.J., Parks N.L. Treatment of major defects of bone with bulk allografts and stemmed components during total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79(7):1030-1039.
  27. Pour A.E. Parvizi J., Slenker N. Rotation hinge total knee replacement: use with caution. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(8):1735-1741. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00893.
  28. Куляба Т.А., Корнилов Н.Н., Бовкис Г.Ю., Кроитору И.И., Румакин В.П. Костная аллопластика при ревизионном эндопротезировании коленного сустава: гистологическая характеристика структурного трансплантата через 54 месяца после имплантации (клиническое наблюдение). Травматология и ортопедия России. 2016;22(4):122-130. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2016-22-4-122-130.
  29. Pala E., Trovarelli G., Angelini A., Maraldi M., Berizzi A., Ruggieri P. Megaprosthesis of the knee in tumor and revision surgery. Acta Biomed. 2017;88 (Suppl 2):129-138. doi: 10.23750/abm.v88i2-S.6523.
  30. McNamara C.A., Gösthe R.G., Patel P.D., Sanders K.C., Huaman G., Suarez J.C. Revision total knee arthroplasty using a custom tantalum implant in a patient following multiple failed revisions. Arthroplasty Today. 2016;3(1):13-17. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2016.08.003.
  31. Cavagnaro L., Burastero G., Chiarlone F., Felli L. A new custom-made porous titanium device in knee revision surgery: early results and technical notes. Orthop Proc. 2019;101-B:Suppl 4. Available from: https://online.boneandjoint.org.uk/doi/abs/10.1302/1358-992x.2019.4.009.

Statistics

Views

Abstract: 216

Dimensions

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

PlumX


Copyright (c)



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies