Aims. Metaphyseal tritanium cones can be used to manage the tibial bone loss commonly encountered at revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). Tibial stems provide additional fixation and are generally used in combination with cones. The aim of this study was to examine the role of the stems in the overall stability of tibial implants when metaphyseal cones are used for rTKA. Methods. This computational study investigates whether stems are required to augment metaphyseal cones at rTKA. Three cemented stem scenarios (no stem, 50 mm stem, and 100 mm stem) were investigated with 10 mm-deep uncontained posterior and medial tibial defects using four loading scenarios designed to mimic activities of daily living. Results. Small micromotions (mean < 12 µm) were found to occur at the bone-implant interface for all loading cases with or without a stem. Stem inclusion was associated with lower micromotion, however these reductions were too small to have any clinical significance. Peak interface micromotion, even when the cone is used without a stem, was too small to effect osseointegration. The maximum difference occurred with stair descent loading. Stress concentrations in the bone occurred around the inferior aspect of each implant, with the largest occurring at the end of the long stem; these may lead to end-of-stem pain. Stem use is also found to result in stress shielding in the bone along the stem. Conclusion. When a metaphyseal cone is used at rTKA to manage uncontained posterior or medial defects of up to 10 mm depth, stem use may not be necessary. Cite this article:Bone Joint Res. 2020;9(4):162–172

Introduction. Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is becoming increasingly common in the United States as the population ages and larger numbers of primary TKA are performed in younger individuals. Cemented or uncemented tibial stems are frequently used in revision cases. Decreased clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction have been described for revision TKA. This study aims to determine if the presence of overall pain and tibial pain at the end of the stem differs between cemented and uncemented tibial stems in revision TKA. Methods. This was a retrospective cohort study comparing patients who underwent revision TKA utilizing cemented or uncemented tibial stems in a 15-year period at a single institution with at least two-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria included age under 18, isolated revisions of the femoral component or polyethylene exchanges, lack of preoperative or postoperative imaging, insufficient operative or implant records available for electronic chart review, revision procedures performed at outside facilities, patients who were deceased at the time of survey administration, refusal to participate in the study, and failure to return the mailed survey or respond to a telephone follow-up questionnaire. Radiographic analysis included calculation of the percentage of the tibial canal filled with the implant, as well as measurement of the diameter of the tibial stem. Radiographs were also reviewed for evidence of cavitary defects, pedestal formation, radiolucent lines, and periprosthetic fractures. Mailed surveys addressing overall pain, tibial pain, and satisfaction were analyzed using Fisher's exact test and the independent sample t-test. Logistic regression was used to adjust for age, gender, and preoperative bone loss. Results. A total of 110 patients were included (63 cemented and 47 uncemented stems). No statistically significant differences in stem length, operative side, or indications for revision were found. The uncemented group had a significantly higher percent canal fill (p < 0.0001). Tibial pain at the end of the stem was present in 25.3% of cemented stems and 25.5% of uncemented stems (p = 1.00). There was a trend towards more overall pain in the uncemented cohort, but this did not reach statistical significance. Only 74.6% of cemented patients and 78.7% of uncemented patients were satisfied following revision TKA (p = 0.66). Conclusion. The data supports our hypothesis that there are no differences in end-of-stem pain or overall pain between cemented and uncemented tibial stems in revision TKA. High rates of dissatisfaction were noted in both cohorts postoperatively, consistent with previous literature. Patient factors likely play a large role in the presence of postoperative pain. These factors should be further evaluated in future studies in an effort to reduce pain and improve patient satisfaction

Stems improve the mechanical stability of tibial components in total knee replacement (TKR), but come at a cost of stress shielding along their length. Their advantages include resistance to shear, reduced tibial lift-off and increased stability by reducing micromotion. Longer stems may have disadvantages including stress shielding along the length of the stem with associated reduction in bone density and a theoretical risk of subsidence and loosening, peri-prosthetic fracture and end-of-stem pain. These features make long stems unattractive in the primary TKR setting, but often desirable in revision surgery with bone loss and instability. In the revision scenario, stems are beneficial in order to convey structural stability to the construct and protect the reconstruction of bony defects. Cemented and uncemented long stemmed implants have different roles depending on the nature of the bone loss involved. This review discusses the biomechanics of the design of tibial components and stems to inform the selection of the component and the technique of implantation

Revision knee prostheses are often augmented with intramedullary stems to provide stability following bone loss. However, there are concerns with the use of such stems, including loosening caused by strain-shielding, end-of-stem pain, and removal of healthy bone surrounding the medullary canal. Extracortical fixation plates may present an alternative. The aim of the study was to quantitatively evaluate and compare strain-shielding in the tibia following implantation of a knee replacement component augmented with either a conventional intramedullary stem (design1), or extracortical plates (design2) on the medial and lateral surfaces. Eight composite synthetic tibiae were implanted with one of the two designs, painted with a speckle pattern, loaded in axial compression (peak 2.5 kN) using a materials test machine, and imaged with a 5-megapixel digital image correlation (DIC) system throughout loading. Bone loss was simulated in all models by removing a volume of metaphyseal bone. For four tibiae, the tibial tray was augmented with a cemented stem (∼150 mm). The others were augmented by extracortical plates (maximum 90 mm long) along the medial and lateral surfaces (Fig. 1). Strains were computed using an ARAMIS 5M software system between loaded and unloaded states in the longitudinal direction, for the medial, posterior and lateral surfaces of the tibiae. Strains were checked locally by use of strain gauge rosettes at three levels on medial, lateral and posterior aspects. The bone strains measured on the posterior surfaces were reported in three regions; proximal (0–70 mm, where the medial extracortical plate lies), middle (70–130 mm, the stem is present but not the extracortical plates), and distal (130–200 mm, beyond the stem). Mean longitudinal strains for both implant types were comparable in the distal region, and were greater than in the other regions (Fig 2). The mean strains differed considerably in the middle region: 565–715 μstrain with stemmed components 1050–1155 μstrain with plated components. Strains followed a similar pattern in the proximal region, particularly very close (20 mm) to the tibial tray component, where the stemmed component bones (775 ± 160 μstrain) displayed less surface strain than the plated component bones (1210 ± 180 μstrain). Strain-shielding was observed for both designs. The side plates were shorter than the intramedullary rods, so the region of the bone distal to the plates was not strain-shielded, while the same region was strain-shielded when a stemmed component was implanted. It was also shown that in the region of bone just distal of the tibial tray component, design1 shielded the bone from strain 56% more on average than design2. From these results, it can be speculated that the use of extracortical plate rather than intramedullary stems may lead to improved long-term results of revision TKA, assuming the plates and screws provide adequate stability. The extramedullary fixation system preserves more bone than IM fixation, and has the advantage of allowing use of primary TKA components, cemented over the subframe. Similar components have been developed for the femur

Aims

Both the femoral and tibial component are usually cemented at revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), while stems can be added with either cemented or press-fit (hybrid) fixation. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term stability of rTKA with cemented and press-fitted stems, using radiostereometric analysis (RSA).

Stems may improve fixation and stability of components during revision total knee replacement. However, the choice between cemented and cementless stems is not a clear one. Cemented stems offer several advantages in terms of versatility, mechanical stability, surgical technique and clinical outcome over their cementless counterpart.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):115–7.