Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Revision total knee arthroplasty with porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves provides radiographic ingrowth and stable fixation

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

Porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves are designed to fill bone defects and facilitate osseointegration when bone loss in encountered during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study is to evaluate short-term results of porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves with regards to implant fixation and clinical outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted on 50 patients (79 sleeves—49 tibial and 30 femoral) who had a press-fit metaphyseal sleeve with revision TKA. Tibial and femoral bone loss was classified according to the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) bone defect classification. Post-operative complications of infection, revision surgery, and dislocation were assessed. Follow-up radiographs were evaluated for signs of loosening using the criteria developed by the Knee Society. The median follow-up was 58.8 months (range 25.8–93.0 months).

Results

The bone loss classifications were 1 type 1, 30 type 2a, 2 type 2b, and 17 type 3, and with regards to the femur, 5 were type 1, 8 type 2a, 31 type 2b, and 6 type 3. At final follow-up, 41/45 (91.1%) tibial and 28/29 (96.6%) femoral sleeves showed radiographic evidence of ingrowth. Of these 69 patients, all showed radiographic evidence of bony ingrowth. Three sleeves were revised for infection and two for loosening. The re-operation rate for loosening was 5/74 (6.8%) and for any reason was 14/74 (18.9%).

Conclusions

Modular porous-coated press fit metaphyseal sleeves fill defects and provide evidence of radiographic ingrowth. Short-term stable fixation can be achieved with sleeves, which is helpful as more patients undergo revision total knee arthroplasty with greater bone loss. Longer duration studies are needed to ascertain the survival rate of these implants.

Level of evidence

IV.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agarwal S, Azam A, Morgan-Jones R (2013) Metal metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee replacement. Bone Joint J 95-B(12):1640–1644

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alexander GE, Bernasek TL, Crank RL, Haidukewych GJ (2013) Cementless metaphyseal sleeves used for large tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 28(4):604–607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Barnett SL, Mayer RR, Gondusky JS, Choi L, Patel JJ, Gorab RS (2014) Use of stepped porous titanium metaphyseal sleeves for tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: short term results. J Arthroplasty 29(6):1219–1224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bédard M, Cabrejo-Jones K, Angers M, Pelletier-Roy R, Pelet S (2015) The Effect of porous tantalum cones on mechanical alignment and canal-fill ratio in revision total knee arthroplasty performed with uncemented stems. J Arthroplasty 30(11):1995–1998

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown NM, Bell JA, Jung EK, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG, Levine BR (2015) The use of trabecular metal cones in complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 30(9 Suppl):90–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bugler KE, Maheshwari R, Ahmed I, Brenkel IJ, Walmsley PJ (2015) Metaphyseal sleeves for revision total knee arthroplasty: good short-term outcomes. J Arthroplasty 30(11):1990–1994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bush JL, Wilson JB, Vail TP (2006) Management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:186–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dalury DF, Barrett WP (2016) The use of metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee 23(3):545–548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. De Martino I, De Santis V, Sculco PK, D’Apolito R, Assini JB, Gasparini G (2015) Tantalum cones provide durable mid-term fixation in revision TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(10):3176–3182

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Engh GA, Ammeen DJ (1998) Classification and preoperative radiographic evaluation: knee. Orthop Clin North Am 29(2):205–217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ewald FC, Hsu HP, Walker PS (1989) Is kinematic total knee replacement better than total hip replacement? Orthop Clin North Am 20(1):79–88

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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):429–433

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Goldberg VM, Figgie MP, Figgie HE 3rd, Sobel M (1988) The results of revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res (226):86–92

  15. Graichen H, Scior W, Strauch M (2015) Direct, cementless, metaphyseal fixation in knee revision arthroplasty with sleeves-short-term results. J Arthroplasty 30(12):2256–2259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Graichen H, Strauch M, Scior W, Morgan-Jones R (2015) Knee revision arthroplasty: cementless, metaphyseal fixation with sleeves. Oper Orthop Traumatol 27(1):24–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hanssen AD, Rand JA (1988) A comparison of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty using the kinematic stabilizer prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 70(4):491–499

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hooper G, Rothwell A, Frampton C (2009) The low contact stress mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a prospective study with a minimum follow-up of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(1):58–63

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Huang R, Barrazueta G, Ong A, Orozco F, Jafari M, Coyle C, Austin M (2014) Revision total knee arthroplasty using metaphyseal sleeves at short-term follow-up. Orthopedics 37(9):e804–e809

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jones RE, Barrack RL, Skedros J (2001) Modular, mobile- bearing hinge total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:306–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jones RE, Skedros JG, Chan AJ, Beauchamp DH, Harkins PC (2001) Total knee arthroplasty using the S-ROM mobile-bearing hinge prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 16(3):279–287

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kamath AF, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2015) Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(3):216–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):780–785

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lippe CN, Crossett LS (2006) Low contact stress (LCS) complete knee system in revision surgery. Orthopedics 29(9 Suppl):S86–S92

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Long WJ, Scuderi GR (2009) Porous tantalum cones for large metaphyseal tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 24(7):1086–1092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Martin-Hernandez C, Floria-Arnal LJ, Muniesa-Herrero MP, Espallargas-Doñate T, Blanco-Llorca JA, Guillen-Soriano M, Ranera-Garcia M (2016) Mid-term results for metaphyseal sleeves in revision knee surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4298-4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Meneghini RM, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2008) Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(1):78–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Potter GD 3rd, Abdel MP, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2016) Midterm results of porous tantalum femoral cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98(15):1286–1291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rao BM, Kamal TT, Vafaye J, Moss M (2013) Tantalum cones for major osteolysis in revision knee replacement. Bone Joint J 95-B(8):1069–1074

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ritter MA, Eizember LE, Fechtman RW, Keating EM, Faris PM (1991) Revision total knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis. J Arthroplasty 6(4):351–356

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Whittaker JP, Dharmarajan R, Toms AD (2008) The management of bone loss in revision total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(8):981–987

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cooper Bone and Joint Institute, Camden, NJ, USA

    Catherine J. Fedorka

  2. Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Antonia F. Chen

  3. Tri-State Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Michael R. Pagnotto

  4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 5230 Centre Avenue, Suite 415, Pittsburgh, PA, 15232, USA

    Lawrence S. Crossett & Brian A. Klatt

Authors
  1. Catherine J. Fedorka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonia F. Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael R. Pagnotto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lawrence S. Crossett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Brian A. Klatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian A. Klatt.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

LSC receives royalties from DePuy/Synthes related to the topic of this study. The remaining authors do not have any conflicts related to the topic of this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fedorka, C.J., Chen, A.F., Pagnotto, M.R. et al. Revision total knee arthroplasty with porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves provides radiographic ingrowth and stable fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26, 1500–1505 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4493-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4493-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation