Top

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Published in:

01-10-2015 | Clinical Research

Tantalum Cones Provide Durable Mid-term Fixation in Revision TKA

Authors: Ivan De Martino, MD, Vincenzo De Santis, MD, Peter K. Sculco, MD, Rocco D’Apolito, MD, Joseph B. Assini, MD, Giorgio Gasparini, MD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 10/2015

Abstract

Background

Multiple studies have reported favorable short-term outcomes using tantalum cones to reconstruct massive bone defects during revision TKA. However, longer-term followup is needed to determine the durability of these reconstructions.

Questions/purposes

We wished to determine the mid-term (1) reoperation rates for septic and aseptic causes, (2) radiologic findings of osseointegration, and (3) clinical outcomes based on the Knee Society score in patients who underwent revision knee arthroplasty with tantalum cones for severe bone loss.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated records of 18 patients (18 knees) who underwent revision knee arthroplasty with use of tantalum cones between 2005 and 2008; the primary indications for use of this approach were to reconstruct massive bone defects classified as Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute Types 2B and 3. During this period, all defects of this type were treated with this approach and no cones were used for more-minor defects. A total of 26 cones (13 tibial and 13 femoral) were implanted. There were 12 female and six male patients with a mean age of 73 years (range, 55–84 years) at the time of revision. The indication for the revision included aseptic loosening (five patients) and second-stage reimplantation for deep infection (13 patients). Patients were followed for a mean of 6 years (range, 5–8 years). No patient was lost to followup. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were assessed with the Knee Society clinical rating system and radiographic evaluation system.

Results

There have been two reoperations for recurrent infection; at surgery, the two cones showed osseointegration. No evidence of loosening or migration of any implant was noted on the most recent radiographs. Knee Society knee scores improved from a mean of 31 points before surgery to 77 points at latest followup (p < 0.001), and function scores improved from a mean of 22 points to 65 points (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Tantalum cones for reconstruction of massive bone defects in revision knee arthroplasty provided secure fixation with excellent results at average followup of 6 years, although this series included relatively few patients. These devices are a viable option for surgeons to use in situations with severe bone loss. Further studies with longer followups are needed to confirm the durability of these reconstructions.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Bauman RD, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Limitations of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:818–824.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr. Distal femoral replacement in nontumor cases with severe bone loss and instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:485–492.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

Bobyn JD, Pilliar RM, Cameron HU, Weatherly GC. The optimum pore size for the fixation of porous-surfaced metal implants by the ingrowth of bone. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980;150:263–270.PubMed

Bobyn JD, Poggie RA, Krygier JJ, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD, Lewis RJ, Unger AS, O’Keefe TJ, Christie MJ, Nasser S, Wood JE, Stulberg SD, Tanzer M. Clinical validation of a structural porous tantalum biomaterial for adult reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(suppl 2):123–129.PubMed

Bobyn JD, Stackpool GJ, Hacking SA, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ. Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81:907–914.CrossRefPubMed

Chun CH, Kim JW, Kim SH, Kim BG, Chun KC, Kim KM. Clinical and radiological results of femoral head structural allograft for severe bone defects in revision TKA: a minimum 8-year follow-up. Knee. 2014;21:420–423.CrossRefPubMed

Clatworthy MG, Ballance J, Brick GW, Chandler HP, Gross AE. The use of structural allograft for uncontained defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: a minimum five-year review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:404–411.PubMed

Cohen R. A porous tantalum trabecular metal: basic science. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2002;31:216–217.PubMed

Derome P, Sternheim A, Backstein D, Malo M. Treatment of large bone defects with trabecular metal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty: short term clinical and radiographic outcomes. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:122–126.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect. 1999;48:167–175.PubMed

11.

Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Use of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty in knees with severe tibial bone loss. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:2640–2647.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE. Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;257:107–128.PubMed

13.

Ewald FC. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:9–12.PubMed

14.

Ghazavi MT, Stockley I, Yee G, Davis A, Gross AE. Reconstruction of massive bone defects with allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:17–25.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Haas SB, Insall JN, Montgomery W 3rd, Windsor RE. Revision total knee arthroplasty with use of modular components with stems inserted without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77:1700–1707.PubMed

16.

Harris AI, Poddar S, Gitelis S, Sheinkop MB, Rosenberg AG. Arthroplasty with a composite of an allograft and a prosthesis for knees with severe deficiency of bone. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77:373–386.PubMed

17.

Hockman DE, Ammeen D, Engh GA. Augments and allografts in revision total knee arthroplasty: usage and outcome using one modular revision prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:35–41.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Howard JL, Kudera J, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Early results of the use of tantalum femoral cones for revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:478–484.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:13–14.PubMed

20.

Jacobs C, Christensen CP, Berend ME. Static and mobile antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers for the management of prosthetic joint infection. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17:356–368.PubMed

21.

Jensen CL, Winther N, Schrøder HM, Petersen MM. Outcome of revision total knee arthroplasty with the use of trabecular metal cone for reconstruction of severe bone loss at the proximal tibia. Knee. 2014;21:1233–1237.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Jones RE, Skedros JG, Chan AJ, Beauchamp DH, Harkins PC. Total knee arthroplasty using the S-ROM mobile-bearing hinge prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:279–287.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Lachiewicz PF, Bolognesi MP, Henderson RA, Soileau ES, Vail TP. Can tantalum cones provide fixation in complex revision knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:199–204.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed

24.

Long WJ, Scuderi GR. Porous tantalum cones for large metaphyseal tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:1086–1092.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Lonner JH, Lotke PA, Kim J, Nelson C. Impaction grafting and wire mesh for uncontained defects in revision knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;404:145–151.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Meneghini RM, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:78–84.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Meneghini RM, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement: surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(suppl 2):131–138.PubMed

28.

Mnaymneh W, Emerson RH, Borja F, Head WC, Malinin TI. Massive allografts in salvage revisions of failed total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;260:144–153.PubMed

29.

Murray PB, Rand JA, Hanssen AD. Cemented long-stem revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;309:116–123.PubMed

30.

Nehme A, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Modular porous metal augments for treatment of severe acetabular bone loss during revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:201–208.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Parks NL, Engh GA. The Ranawat Award: Histology of nine structural bone grafts used in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;345:17–23.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Patel JV, Masonis JL, Guerin J, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH. The fate of augments to treat type-2 bone defects in revision knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:195–199.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Pour AE, Parvizi J, Slenker N, Purtill JJ, Sharkey PF. Rotating hinged total knee replacement: use with caution. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1735–1741.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Radnay CS, Scuderi GR. Management of bone loss: augments, cones, offset stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;446:83–92.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Rao BM, Kamal TT, Vafaye J, Moss M. Tantalum cones for major osteolysis in revision knee replacement. Bone Joint J. 2013;95:1069–1074.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Schmitz HC, Klauser W, Citak M, Al-Khateeb H, Gehrke T, Kendoff D. Three-year follow up utilizing tantal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:1556–1560.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. The use of a trabecular metal acetabular component and trabecular metal augment for severe acetabular defects. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21(6 suppl 2):83–86.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Suárez-Suárez MA, Murcia A, Maestro A. Filling of segmental bone defects in revision knee arthroplasty using morsellized bone grafts contained within a metal mesh. Acta Orthop Belg. 2002;68:163–167.PubMed

39.

Tsahakis PJ, Beaver WB, Brick GW. Technique and results of allograft reconstruction in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;303:86–94.PubMed

40.

Toms AD, Barker RL, Jones RS, Kuiper JH. Impaction bone-grafting in revision joint replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:2050–2060.PubMed

41.

Unger AS, Lewis RJ, Gruen T. Evaluation of a porous tantalum uncemented acetabular cup in revision total hip arthroplasty: clinical and radiological results of 60 hips. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:1002–1009.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Villanueva-Martínez M, De la Torre-Escudero B, Rojo-Manaute JM, Ríos-Luna A, Chana-Rodriguez F. Tantalum cones in revision total knee arthroplasty: a promising short-term result with 29 cones in 21 patients. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:988–993.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Wang JW, Hsu CH, Huang CC, Lin PC, Chen WS. Reconstruction using femoral head allograft in revision total knee replacement: an experience in Asian patients. Bone Joint J. 2013;95:643–648.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Whiteside LA. Morselized allografting in revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 1998;21:1041–1043.PubMed

Title: Tantalum Cones Provide Durable Mid-term Fixation in Revision TKA
Authors: Ivan De Martino, MD
Vincenzo De Santis, MD
Peter K. Sculco, MD
Rocco D’Apolito, MD
Joseph B. Assini, MD
Giorgio Gasparini, MD
Publication date: 01-10-2015
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 10/2015
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4338-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Tantalum Cones Provide Durable Mid-term Fixation in Revision TKA

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2015

Editorial: Case Closed—Discontinuing Case Reports in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ®

Adipose-derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Are Phenotypically Superior for Regeneration in the Setting of Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head

Posterior Soft Tissue Repair After Primary THA is Durable at Mid-term Followup: A Prospective MRI Study

Lengthening With External Fixation Is Effective in Congenital Femoral Deficiency

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Spine, Shoulder, Hand, Hip, and Knee Osteoarthritis in Community-dwelling Koreans Older Than Age 65 Years

Low Albumin Levels, More Than Morbid Obesity, Are Associated With Complications After TKA