Atul F Kamath1, David G Lewallen1, Arlen D Hanssen1. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Gonda 14, Rochester, MN 55905. E-mail address for A.D. Hanssen: hanssen.arlen@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Severe metaphyseal and meta-diaphyseal bone loss poses important challenges in revision total knee arthroplasty. The best strategy for addressing massive tibial bone loss has not been determined. The purpose of this study was to assess the intermediate-term clinical and radiographic results of porous tibial cone implantation. METHODS: Sixty-six porous tantalum tibial cones (sixty-three patients) were reviewed at a mean follow-up time of seventy months (range, sixty to 106 months). According to the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute bone defect classification, twenty-four knees had a Type-3 defect, twenty-five knees had a Type-2B defect, and seventeen knees had a Type-2A defect. RESULTS: The mean age at the time of the index revision was sixty-seven years (range, forty-one to eighty-three years), and 57% of patients were female. The mean American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status was 2.4 (range, 2 to 3), and the mean body mass index was 33 kg/m(2) (range, 25 to 53 kg/m(2)). Fifteen patients (24%) were on immunosuppressant medications, and eight patients (13%) were current smokers. The patients underwent a mean number of 3.4 prior knee surgical procedures (range, one to twenty procedures), and 49% of patients (thirty-one patients) had a history of periprosthetic infection. The mean Knee Society Scores improved significantly from 55 points preoperatively (range, 4 to 97 points) to 80 points (range, 28 to 100 points) at the time of the latest follow-up (p < 0.0001). One patient had progressive radiolucencies about the tibial stem and cone on radiographs. One patient had complete radiolucencies about the tibial cone, concerning for fibrous ingrowth. Three other cones were revised: one for infection, one for aseptic loosening, and one for periprosthetic fracture. Revision-free survival of the tibial cone component was >95% at the time of the latest follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Porous tantalum tibial cones offer a promising management option for severe tibial bone loss. At the intermediate-term follow-up (five to nine years), porous tantalum tibial cones had durable clinical results and radiographic fixation. The biologic ingrowth of these implants offers the potential for successful long-term structural support in complex knee reconstruction.
BACKGROUND: Severe metaphyseal and meta-diaphyseal bone loss poses important challenges in revision total knee arthroplasty. The best strategy for addressing massive tibial bone loss has not been determined. The purpose of this study was to assess the intermediate-term clinical and radiographic results of porous tibial cone implantation. METHODS: Sixty-six porous tantalum tibial cones (sixty-three patients) were reviewed at a mean follow-up time of seventy months (range, sixty to 106 months). According to the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute bone defect classification, twenty-four knees had a Type-3 defect, twenty-five knees had a Type-2B defect, and seventeen knees had a Type-2A defect. RESULTS: The mean age at the time of the index revision was sixty-seven years (range, forty-one to eighty-three years), and 57% of patients were female. The mean American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status was 2.4 (range, 2 to 3), and the mean body mass index was 33 kg/m(2) (range, 25 to 53 kg/m(2)). Fifteen patients (24%) were on immunosuppressant medications, and eight patients (13%) were current smokers. The patients underwent a mean number of 3.4 prior knee surgical procedures (range, one to twenty procedures), and 49% of patients (thirty-one patients) had a history of periprosthetic infection. The mean Knee Society Scores improved significantly from 55 points preoperatively (range, 4 to 97 points) to 80 points (range, 28 to 100 points) at the time of the latest follow-up (p < 0.0001). One patient had progressive radiolucencies about the tibial stem and cone on radiographs. One patient had complete radiolucencies about the tibial cone, concerning for fibrous ingrowth. Three other cones were revised: one for infection, one for aseptic loosening, and one for periprosthetic fracture. Revision-free survival of the tibial cone component was >95% at the time of the latest follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Porous tantalum tibial cones offer a promising management option for severe tibial bone loss. At the intermediate-term follow-up (five to nine years), porous tantalum tibial cones had durable clinical results and radiographic fixation. The biologic ingrowth of these implants offers the potential for successful long-term structural support in complex knee reconstruction.
Authors: Chad D Watts; Eric R Wagner; Matthew T Houdek; David G Lewallen; Tad M Mabry Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Catherine J Fedorka; Antonia F Chen; Michael R Pagnotto; Lawrence S Crossett; Brian A Klatt Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Nemandra A Sandiford; Peter Misur; Donald S Garbuz; Nelson V Greidanus; Bassam A Masri Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Antonio Klasan; Sven Edward Putnis; Samuel Grasso; Thomas Neri; Myles Raphael Coolican Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2020-03-07 Impact factor: 3.067