Literature DB >> 32274569

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

Malte Ohlmeier1, Christian Lausmann2, Matthias Wolff2, Hussein Abdelaziz2, Thorsten Gehrke2, Mustafa Citak2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To analyze the first results of calcium-phosphate-coated porous tibia cones.
METHODS: Patients treated with TrabecuLink®-CaP Cones were retrospectively recruited from January 2016 to December 2017. These custom-made cones were produced using titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4 V (Tilastan®) and using additive manufacturing with a special calcium-phosphate coating (HX®-coating). Clinical outcome was evaluated using Oxford Knee Score. For radiological evaluation of the implants, patients sent us outpatient taken radiographs. A minimum follow-up of one year was required. Lastly, we analyzed postoperative complications and revision rates.
RESULTS: 52 patients with revision knee arthroplasty (RKA) were recruited for final analysis, of whom, we had 17 septic RKAs (33%) and 35 aseptic cases of RKA (67%). The bone defects were grouped into 17 AORI Type 2A (32.7%), 14 Type 2B (26.9%) and 21 Type 3 (40.4%). After a mean follow-up of 22 months (13.2-34.8; SD = ± 10), we had 4 surgical revisions (7.7%), 2 septic and 2 aseptic cases. The mean Oxford Knee Score was 28.6 points (8-47; SD = ± 10). 22 of 28 radiographs (78.6%) showed regular positioning of the cones and TKAs at a mean follow-up of 16.8 months (13.2-34.8; SD = ± 6). Three patients (10.7%) showed slight radiolucencies in the bone-cement interfaces and 3 patients (10.7%) had beginning heterotopic ossifications.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the initial clinical results of calcium-phosphate-coated tibia cones showing a good functional outcome. Further research should focus on long-term clinical and radiological follow-up.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Coated cones; Cone; Porous tantalum cones; Revision knee arthroplasty; TKA; Total knee arthroplasty; TrabecuLink®-CaP cones

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32274569     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-020-03434-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  29 in total

1.  The management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty: rebuild, reinforce, and augment.

Authors:  P K Sculco; M P Abdel; A D Hanssen; D G Lewallen
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 5.082

2.  A trabecular metal tibial component in total knee replacement in patients younger than 60 years: a two-year radiostereophotogrammetric analysis.

Authors:  A Henricson; L Linder; K G Nilsson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2008-12

Review 3.  Porous metal metaphyseal cones for severe bone loss: when only metal will do.

Authors:  P F Lachiewicz; T S Watters
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 5.082

4.  Development and Verification of Novel Porous Titanium Metaphyseal Cones for Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ahmad Faizan; Manoshi Bhowmik-Stoker; Vincent Alipit; Amanda E Kirk; Viktor E Krebs; Steven F Harwin; R Michael Meneghini
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 4.757

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

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

6.  The Use of Tantalum Metaphyseal Cones for the Management of Severe Bone Defects in Septic Knee Revision.

Authors:  Giorgio Burastero; Luca Cavagnaro; Francesco Chiarlone; Mattia Alessio-Mazzola; Giuliana Carrega; Lamberto Felli
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2018-08-30       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 7.  Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction.

Authors:  G A Engh; D J Ammeen
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  1999

8.  Addressing large tibial osseous defects in primary total knee arthroplasty using porous tantalum cones.

Authors:  Jae S You; Anne R Wright; Ian Hasegawa; Brandon Kobayashi; Matthew Kawahara; Jordan Wang; Cass K Nakasone
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2018-12-14       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 9.  Are Trabecular Metal Cones a Valid Option to Treat Metaphyseal Bone Defects in Complex Primary and Revision Knee Arthroplasty?

Authors:  Tommaso Bonanzinga; Thorsten Gehrke; Akos Zahar; Stefano Zaffagnini; Maurilio Marcacci; Carl Haasper
Journal:  Joints       Date:  2017-12-14

10.  Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement.

Authors:  R Michael Meneghini; David G Lewallen; Arlen D Hanssen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 5.284

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Bone loss in aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty: management and outcomes.

Authors:  Thomas Bieganowski; Daniel B Buchalter; Vivek Singh; John J Mercuri; Vinay K Aggarwal; Joshua C Rozell; Ran Schwarzkopf
Journal:  Knee Surg Relat Res       Date:  2022-06-20

2.  Additive manufacturing of porous titanium metaphyseal components: Early osseointegration and implant stability in revision knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Thomas England; Joseph Pagkalos; Lee Jeys; Rajesh Botchu; Richard Carey Smith
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2020-10-24

3.  What Is the Mid-term Survivorship of Infected Rotating-hinge Implants Treated with One-stage-exchange?

Authors:  Malte Ohlmeier; Fadi Alrustom; Mustafa Citak; Jochen Salber; Thorsten Gehrke; Jannik Frings
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 4.176

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.