Stefano Divano1, Luca Cavagnaro2, Andrea Zanirato2, Marco Basso2, Lamberto Felli2, Matteo Formica2. 1. U.O. Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino IST, largo R. Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, GE, Italy. ste.divano@hotmail.com. 2. U.O. Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino IST, largo R. Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, GE, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Revision knee arthroplasty is increasing, and in that case, bone loss management is still a challenging problem. In the last years, the body of literature and interest surrounding porous metal cones has grown, but few systematic evaluations of the existing evidence have been performed. The aim of our systematic review is to collect and critically analyze the available evidence about metal cones in revision knee arthroplasty especially focusing our attention on indications, results, complications, and infection rate of these promising orthopaedic devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the available English literature, considering the outcomes and the complications of tantalum cones. The combinations of keyword were "porous metal cones", "knee revision", "bone loss", "knee arthroplasty", "periprosthetic joint infection", and "outcome". RESULTS: From the starting 312 papers available, 20 manuscripts were finally included. Only one included study has a control group. The main indication for metal cones is type IIb and III defects according AORI classification. Most of the papers show good clinical and radiological outcomes with low rate of complications. CONCLUSION: The examined studies provide encouraging clinical and radiological short-to-mid-term outcomes. Clinical studies have shown a low rate of aseptic loosening, intraoperative fractures, infection rate and a lower failure rate than the previous treatment methods. Higher quality papers are needed to draw definitive conclusions about porous metal cones.
INTRODUCTION: Revision knee arthroplasty is increasing, and in that case, bone loss management is still a challenging problem. In the last years, the body of literature and interest surrounding porous metal cones has grown, but few systematic evaluations of the existing evidence have been performed. The aim of our systematic review is to collect and critically analyze the available evidence about metal cones in revision knee arthroplasty especially focusing our attention on indications, results, complications, and infection rate of these promising orthopaedic devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the available English literature, considering the outcomes and the complications of tantalum cones. The combinations of keyword were "porous metal cones", "knee revision", "bone loss", "knee arthroplasty", "periprosthetic joint infection", and "outcome". RESULTS: From the starting 312 papers available, 20 manuscripts were finally included. Only one included study has a control group. The main indication for metal cones is type IIb and III defects according AORI classification. Most of the papers show good clinical and radiological outcomes with low rate of complications. CONCLUSION: The examined studies provide encouraging clinical and radiological short-to-mid-term outcomes. Clinical studies have shown a low rate of aseptic loosening, intraoperative fractures, infection rate and a lower failure rate than the previous treatment methods. Higher quality papers are needed to draw definitive conclusions about porous metal cones.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone loss; Knee arthroplasty; Knee revision; Outcome; Periprosthetic joint infection; Porous metal cones
Authors: Fabio Mancino; Vincenzo Di Matteo; Fabrizio Mocini; Silvia Pietramala; Alessandro Singlitico; Andrea De Fazio; Vincenzo La Vergata; Giorgio Gasparini; Giulio Maccauro; Ivan De Martino Journal: Orthop Rev (Pavia) Date: 2022-06-27
Authors: Ittai Shichman; Christian Oakley; Jore H Willems; Gijs G van Hellemondt; Petra Heesterbeek; Joshua Rozell; Scott Marwin; Ran Schwarzkopf Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2022-10-15 Impact factor: 2.928
Authors: Daniel Kotrych; Sławomir Marcinkowski; Adam Brodecki; Marcin Anuszkiewicz; Jakub Kleszowski; Andrzej Bohatyrewicz; Dawid Ciechanowicz Journal: Open Med (Wars) Date: 2022-07-15
Authors: Yunong Ao; Lin Guo; Hao Chen; Rui He; Pengfei Yang; Dejie Fu; Lingchuan Gu; Yang Peng; Ran Xiong; Liu Yang; Fuyou Wang Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2022-09-05
Authors: Sandra Tie Nishibe Minamoto; Luís Felipe Tupinambá da Silva; José Leonardo Rocha de Faria; Hugo Alexandre de Araujo Barros Cobra; Idemar Monteiro da Palma; Alan de Paula Mozella Journal: Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) Date: 2022-06-20