Mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves used in revision total knee arthroplasty

A systematic review of the literature: The use of metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to analyze the indications, complications, survivorship and clinical/functional outcome of metaphyseal sleeves as a treatment option in revision total knee arthroplasty.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A systematic review was made following the PRISMA recommendations on the use of metaphyseal sleeves for revision total knee arthroplasty. We included prospective and retrospective studies published in the last 10 years looking at implant survivorship, clinical and functional outcome with a minimum follow-up of 2 years.

RESULTS

The included studies showed good both functional and clinical outcomes. The overall reoperation rate was 16.2%, with an overall survival rate of 92.2% and aseptic survivorship of 98.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Metaphyseal sleeves are a good treatment option for this surgery, especially in AORI II or III type bone defects, achieving good intraoperative and primary stability of the implant, with good and rapid osseointegration.

[Translated article] A systematic review of the literature: The use of metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to analyse the indications, complications, survivorship and clinical/functional outcome of metaphyseal sleeves as a treatment option in revision total knee arthroplasty.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A systematic review was made following the PRISMA recommendations on the use of metaphyseal sleeves for revision total knee arthroplasty. We included prospective and retrospective studies published in the last 10 years looking at implant survivorship, clinical and functional outcome with a minimum follow-up of 2 years.

RESULTS

The included studies showed good both functional and clinical outcomes. The overall reoperation rate was 16.2%, with an overall survival rate of 92.2% and aseptic survivorship of 98.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Metaphyseal sleeves are a good treatment option for this surgery, especially in AORI II or III type bone defects, achieving good intraoperative and primary stability of the implant, with good and rapid osseointegration.

Excellent mid- to long-term survival of tantalum metal cones in a case series of revision knee arthroplasty with severe bony defects

PURPOSE

Severe metaphyseal bone defects remain a challenge and represent a growing problem in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). The purpose of this study was to examine the survival of first-generation tantalum metal cones (TMC) and to assess clinical and radiographic data obtained from mid- to long-term follow-ups (FU) after RTKA with severe bony defects.

METHODS

This retrospective case series included 100 consecutive patients of the same centre, who underwent RTKA surgery with TMC for tibia and/or femur bone defects between January 2011 and December 2015. Fourteen patients had died and six were lost for FU, leaving a total of eighty patients (one hundred and twelve TMC) for final evaluation. Clinical parameters including the Knee Society Score (KSS), visual analogue scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and range of motion (ROM) were determined preoperatively based on the patients' medical charts, and assessed again during the final FU after an average of 6.1 (5-9) years postoperative. Standardised postoperative X-rays were analysed during the final FU visit for osseointegration of the cones, and any signs of implant loosening were assessed with the modified Knee Society Radiographic review criteria. Perioperative and postoperative complications, reoperations, as well as implant and cone re-revisions were analysed. Survivorship analysis was performed with (a) cone-related revision for any reason and (b) implant component revision for any reason.

RESULTS

Previous RTKA had to be performed due to 64 (80%) aseptic and 16 (20%) septic failures. At the final FU, 75 (94%) tibia and 76 (95%) femur TMCs and implants were clinically stable. One patient experienced loosening of cones and implants at the femur and tibia but denied re-revision surgery. There were eight (10%) reoperations including two early wound healing problems, two inlay changes, two periprosthetic fractures, one debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR), and one secondary patella replacement. The six (7.5%) re-revisions included two aseptic loosening's of the opposite implant without TMC, one arthrodesis for recurrent instability, and three deep infections managed by two two-stage exchanges, and one amputation for persistent infection. At re-revision, all TMC cones were osteointegrated without signs of loosening. The determined clinical parameters showed significant (p < 0.001) postoperative improvement, and objective KSS was rated as excellent in 51%, and as good in 22% of patients at the final FU. The estimated 8-year Kaplan-Meier survival was 95% for TMC and 92.5% for implant components.

CONCLUSION

Tantalum metal cones (TMC) demonstrate a secure fixation for treatment of severe femoral and tibial metaphyseal bone defects during RTKA. This fixation concept showed excellent mid- to long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes with promising 8-year survival rates for cones and implant components.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort study, Level IV.

Does stem profile have an impact on the failure patterns in revision total knee arthroplasty?

INTRODUCTION

Revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) has been increasing continuously. The results of RTKA still remain unsatisfactory. Failure patterns and risk factors in RTKA were thoroughly analyzed, with periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) and aseptic loosening remaining at the forefront of re-revision (ReRTKA) causes. While there is evidence that stem profile impacts the revisability of cemented implants, its association with the modes of RTKA failure is unknown.

METHODS

50 consecutive ReRTKA performed in a single orthopedic center during 2016-2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The cases were stratified according to age, sex, number of preexisting revisions, fixation technique, stem design and causes of re-revision. All explanted implants with conical vs. cylindrical stem profiles were compared.

RESULTS

Mean age was 67 ± 11.5, and 54% were females. 72% of the cases had ≥ 3 previous revisions. 88% were full-cemented, 3% hybrid and 9% press-fit stems. 36% of the RTKA had conical, 58% cylindrical and 6% combined stem profiles. 92% of the RTKA components were removed. Removal causes were: PJI (52.2%), aseptic loosening (34.8%), implant malposition (9.8%), painful knee (1.1%) and instability (2.2%). While the overall RTKA failure patterns were equally distributed between conical and cylindrical stems, subgroup analysis of only cemented ReRTKA revealed a higher incidence of aseptic loosening within cylindrical stem profiles (46.7% vs. 25.7%, P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Stem profile may have an impact on the process of aseptic loosening in cemented non-metaphyseal engaging RTKA, with cylindrical designs tending to worse outcomes than conical designs. Large cohort studies could provide more clarity on current observation.

Is the patient aware of the difference between resurfaced and nonresurfaced patella after bilateral total knee arthroplasty? A systematic review of simultaneous bilateral randomized trials

Purpose

The optimal practice of patellar management in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. This systematic review was conducted to compare patella-related (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), (2) clinical outcomes, and (3) reoperation rates after TKA with patellar resurfacing (PR) and nonresurfacing (NPR) in single patients undergoing bilateral patellar procedures during simultaneous bilateral TKA.

Methods

This review included prospective bilateral randomized trials investigating patella-related PROMs, clinical outcomes, and reoperation (secondary resurfacing and patellar component revision) and other patella-related complications in single patients undergoing randomly assigned PR and NPR during bilateral TKA.

Results

Six studies were included. There was no difference in PROMs between PR and NPR in five studies, whereas PR was found to be superior to NPR in one study. Five studies reported similar functional outcomes and complication rates between PR and NPR, while one study found better clinical outcomes and a lower complication rate in PR. Between-group secondary resurfacing and patellar revision rates were similar in all studies.

Conclusions

The majority of patients who underwent bilateral patellar procedures could not tell the difference between PR and NPR following bilateral TKA. There were no differences in clinical outcomes or reoperation and complication rates between PR and NPR. No evidence was found to support routine PR.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level 1

[Bone defect management in revision knee arthroplasty]

BACKGROUND

In 2019, 124,677 primary total knee arthroplasties and 14,462 revision TKA were performed in Germany. This corresponds to a percentage of 11.6%. According to the EPRD, the probability of further revision surgery after the first exchange operation is around 15%.

REASONS

The most common reason for revision surgery is still aseptic loosening with 23.9%. One possible cause could be the difficult fixation of revision total knee arthroplasty. If the bone quality is insufficient, cement-free or cemented diaphyseal anchoring of the prosthesis is often not sufficient to ensure adequate fixation. As a rule, defect management and fixation of the implant are based on the defect situation and the quality of the bone. Therefore, revision total knee arthroplasties based on the fixation principle of Jones et al. should be sufficiently fixed in at least 2 zones.

TECHNIQUES

There are various techniques for stable anchoring of revision implants. In addition to cemented or cementless stem anchoring, bone allografts, wedges and blocks and, in recent years, cones and sleeves have become increasingly popular. In the present work, the various options for a stable anchoring of revision implants are presented and evaluated. In addition, the clinical and radiological outcome of cones vs. sleeves in bone defect management in revision knee arthroplasty will be compared.