Ron Gurel1, Samuel Morgan2, Etay Elbaz3, Itay Ashlenazi3, Nimrod Snir3, Assaf Kadar3, Aviram Gold3, Yaniv Warschawski3. 1. Orthopedic Department, affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Ichilov Hospital, Tel Aviv University, 6 Weizman St, 6423906, Tel Aviv, Israel. rongurel@gmail.com. 2. Tel Aviv University, 6423906, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3. Orthopedic Department, affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Ichilov Hospital, Tel Aviv University, 6 Weizman St, 6423906, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The management of bone defects remains one of the major challenges surgeons are faced with in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). Large and uncontained bone defects are traditionally managed with metaphyseal sleeves that facilitate osseointegration and have reported construct stability. While many studies have presented excellent short-term outcomes using metaphyseal sleeves, less is known on their performance in the longer term. The purpose of this study was to present our mid-term results of the metaphyseal sleeves used in patients undergoing RTKA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2007 and January 2015, 30 patients underwent RTKA with the use of a CCKMB prosthesis combined with an osteointegrative sleeve. The main indications for RTKA were instability in 40% of the cases (n = 12), aseptic loosening in 30% (n = 9), infection in 26.7% (n = 8), and "other" in 3.3% (n = 1). The minimal follow-up time was 5 years and the mean follow-up time was 82.4 months (SD = 22.6). Clinical outcomes were assessed by Knee Society scores (KSS), range of motion and rate of re-operation. RESULTS: The mean Knee Society score increased significantly from 72.1 preoperatively to 90.0 postoperatively (p < 0.001). The cumulative incidence of re-operation in our study was 13.3% (n = 4). Our study reported no cases of aseptic loosening or mobile-bearing spin-out. Knee flexion to 90° and more was impossible in seven cases (23.3%) preoperatively and in one case (3.3%) postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves demonstrated excellent rates of survivorship and radiographic ingrowth in the mid-term setting. However, further studies are required to assess their outcomes in the long-term.
BACKGROUND: The management of bone defects remains one of the major challenges surgeons are faced with in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). Large and uncontained bone defects are traditionally managed with metaphyseal sleeves that facilitate osseointegration and have reported construct stability. While many studies have presented excellent short-term outcomes using metaphyseal sleeves, less is known on their performance in the longer term. The purpose of this study was to present our mid-term results of the metaphyseal sleeves used in patients undergoing RTKA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2007 and January 2015, 30 patients underwent RTKA with the use of a CCKMB prosthesis combined with an osteointegrative sleeve. The main indications for RTKA were instability in 40% of the cases (n = 12), aseptic loosening in 30% (n = 9), infection in 26.7% (n = 8), and "other" in 3.3% (n = 1). The minimal follow-up time was 5 years and the mean follow-up time was 82.4 months (SD = 22.6). Clinical outcomes were assessed by Knee Society scores (KSS), range of motion and rate of re-operation. RESULTS: The mean Knee Society score increased significantly from 72.1 preoperatively to 90.0 postoperatively (p < 0.001). The cumulative incidence of re-operation in our study was 13.3% (n = 4). Our study reported no cases of aseptic loosening or mobile-bearing spin-out. Knee flexion to 90° and more was impossible in seven cases (23.3%) preoperatively and in one case (3.3%) postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves demonstrated excellent rates of survivorship and radiographic ingrowth in the mid-term setting. However, further studies are required to assess their outcomes in the long-term.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone loss; Metaphyseal sleeve; Revision total knee arthroplasty
Authors: Steven M Kurtz; Kevin L Ong; Jordana Schmier; Fionna Mowat; Khaled Saleh; Eva Dybvik; Johan Kärrholm; Göran Garellick; Leif I Havelin; Ove Furnes; Henrik Malchau; Edmund Lau Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 5.284
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: Elena Losina; Thomas S Thornhill; Benjamin N Rome; John Wright; Jeffrey N Katz Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Ivan De Martino; Vincenzo De Santis; Peter K Sculco; Rocco D'Apolito; Joseph B Assini; Giorgio Gasparini Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-05-13 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Laura Theresa Fischer; Markus Heinecke; Eric Röhner; Peter Schlattmann; Georg Matziolis Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 4.114