Literature DB >> 25381423

Porous metal metaphyseal cones for severe bone loss: when only metal will do.

P F Lachiewicz1, T S Watters1.   

Abstract

Metaphyseal bone loss is common with revision total knee replacement (RTKR). Using the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification, type 2-B and type 3 defects usually require large metal blocks, bulk structural allograft or highly porous metal cones. Tibial and femoral trabecular metal metaphyseal cones are a unique solution for large bone defects. These cones substitute for bone loss, improve metaphyseal fixation, help correct malalignment, restore the joint line and may permit use of a shorter stem. The technique for insertion involves sculpturing of the remaining bone with a high speed burr and rasp, followed by press-fit of the cone into the metaphysis. The fixation and osteoconductive properties of the porous cone outer surface allow ingrowth and encourage long-term biological fixation. The revision knee component is then cemented into the porous cone inner surface, which provides superior fixation compared with cementing into native but deficient metaphyseal bone. The advantages of the cone compared with allograft include: technical ease, biological fixation, no resorption, and possibly a lower risk of infection. The disadvantages include: difficult extraction and relatively short-term follow-up. Several studies using cones report promising short-term results for the reconstruction of large bone defects in RTKR. ©2014 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Metaphyseal fixation; Revision total knee replacement; Trabecular metal cones

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25381423     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B11.34197

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  11 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: No Difference between Trabecular Metal Cones and Femoral Head Allograft in Revision TKA: Minimum 5-year Followup.

Authors:  Douglas A Dennis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-08-19       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Mid-term results for metaphyseal sleeves in revision knee surgery.

Authors:  Carlos Martin-Hernandez; Luis Javier Floria-Arnal; Maria Pilar Muniesa-Herrero; Teresa Espallargas-Doñate; Jose Adolfo Blanco-Llorca; Melchor Guillen-Soriano; Miguel Ranera-Garcia
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-09-17       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Preliminary clinical results of coated porous tibia cones in septic and aseptic revision knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Malte Ohlmeier; Christian Lausmann; Matthias Wolff; Hussein Abdelaziz; Thorsten Gehrke; Mustafa Citak
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-04-09       Impact factor: 3.067

4.  Risk factors for aseptic loosening in complex revision total knee arthroplasty using rotating hinge implants.

Authors:  Ali Levent; Eduardo M Suero; Thorsten Gehrke; Iman Godarzi Bakhtiari; Mustafa Citak
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2020-11-14       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  CORR Insights®: What is the Reliability of a New Classification for Bone Defects in Revision TKA Based on Preoperative Radiographs?

Authors:  Charles N Cornell
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 4.755

6.  Metaphyseal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty: The role of stems.

Authors:  Shuqiao Xie; Noel Conlisk; David Hamilton; Chloe Scott; Richard Burnett; Pankaj Pankaj
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2020-05-16       Impact factor: 5.853

7.  Excellent mid-term osseointegration and implant survival using metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Sebastian M Klim; Florian Amerstorfer; Gerwin A Bernhardt; Patrick Sadoghi; Georg Hauer; Lukas Leitner; Andreas Leithner; Mathias Glehr
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-01-31       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Early Survivorship of Newly Designed Highly Porous Metaphyseal Tibial Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Brian P Chalmers; Christina M Malfer; David J Mayman; Geoffrey H Westrich; Peter K Sculco; Mathias P Bostrom; Seth A Jerabek
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-02-23

9.  A novel use of a tibial cone in a proximal femoral replacement.

Authors:  Hilary Koech; Joshua M Lawrenz; Daniel R Mesko; Robert M Molloy
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2018-02-01

10.  Bone Defects in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alan de Paula Mozella; Hugo Alexandre de Araújo Barros Cobra
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2020-09-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.