Aims. Porous metaphyseal cones can be used for fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and complex TKAs. This metaphyseal fixation has led to some surgeons using shorter cemented stems instead of diaphyseal engaging cementless stems with a potential benefit of ease of obtaining proper alignment without being beholden to the diaphysis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate short term clinical and radiographic outcomes of a series of TKA cases performed using 3D-printed metaphyseal cones. Methods. A retrospective review of 86 rTKAs and nine complex primary TKAs, with an average age of 63.2 years (SD 8.2) and BMI of 34.0 kg/m. 2. (SD 8.7), in which metaphyseal cones were used for both femoral and tibial fixation were compared for their knee alignment based on the type of stem used. Overall, 22 knees had cementless stems on both sides, 52 had cemented stems on both sides, and 15 had mixed stems. Postoperative long-standing radiographs were evaluated for coronal and sagittal plane alignment. Adjusted logistic regression models were run to assess malalignment hip-knee-ankle (HKA) alignment beyond ± 3° and sagittal alignment of the tibial and femoral components ± 3° by stem type. Results. No patients had a revision of a cone due to aseptic loosening; however, two had revision surgery due to infection. In all, 26 (27%) patients had HKA malalignment; nine (9.5%) patients had sagittal plane malalignment, five (5.6%) of the tibia, and four (10.8%) of the femur. After adjusting for age, sex, and BMI, there was a significantly increased risk for malalignment when a cone was used and both the femur and tibia had cementless compared to cemented stems (odds ratio 3.19, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 10.05). Conclusion. Porous 3D-printed cones provide excellent metaphyseal fixation. However, these central cones make the use of offset couplers difficult and may generate malalignment with cementless stems. We found 3.19-times higher odds of malalignment in our TKAs performed with metaphyseal cones and both femoral and tibial cementless stems. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):150–157

Aims. Metaphyseal cones with cemented stems are frequently used in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, if the diaphysis has been previously violated, the resultant sclerotic canal can impair cemented stem fixation, which is vital for bone ingrowth into the cone, and long-term fixation. We report the outcomes of our solution to this problem, in which impaction grafting and a cemented stem in the diaphysis is combined with an uncemented metaphyseal cone, for revision TKA in patients with severely compromised bone. Methods. A metaphyseal cone was combined with diaphyseal impaction grafting and cemented stems for 35 revision TKAs. There were two patients with follow-up of less than two years who were excluded, leaving 33 procedures in 32 patients in the study. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision TKA was 67 years (32 to 87); 20 (60%) were male. Patients had undergone a mean of four (1 to 13) previous knee arthroplasty procedures. The indications for revision were aseptic loosening (80%) and two-stage reimplantation for prosthetic joint infection (PJI; 20%). The mean follow-up was four years (2 to 11). Results. Survival free from revision of the cone/impaction grafting construct due to aseptic loosening was 100% at five years. Survival free from any revision of the construct and free from any reoperation were 92% and 73% at five years, respectively. A total of six patients (six TKAs, 17%) required a further revision, four for infection or wound issues, and two for periprosthetic fracture. Radiologically, one unrevised TKA had evidence of loosening which was asymptomatic. In all unrevised TKAs the impacted diaphyseal bone graft appeared to be incorporated radiologically. Conclusion. When presented with a sclerotic diaphysis and substantial metaphyseal bone loss, this technique combining diaphyseal impaction grafting with a metaphyseal cone provided near universal success in relation to implant fixation. Moreover, radiographs revealed incorporation of the bone graft and biological fixation of the cone. While long-term follow-up will be important, this technique provides an excellent option for the management of complex revision TKAs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):116–122

Aims. Metaphyseal fixation during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is important, but potentially difficult when using historical designs of cone. Material and manufacturing innovations have improved the size and shape of the cones which are available, and simplified the required bone preparation. In a large series, we assessed the implant survivorship, radiological results, and clinical outcomes of new porous 3D-printed titanium metaphyseal cones featuring a reamer-based system. Methods. We reviewed 142 revision TKAs in 139 patients using 202 cones (134 tibial, 68 femoral) which were undertaken between 2015 and 2016. A total of 60 involved tibial and femoral cones. Most cones (149 of 202; 74%) were used for Type 2B or 3 bone loss. The mean age of the patients was 66 years (44 to 88), and 76 (55 %) were female. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 34 kg/m. 2. (18 to 60). The patients had a mean of 2.4 (1 to 8) previous operations on the knee, and 68 (48%) had a history of prosthetic infection. The mean follow-up was 2.4 years (2 to 3.6). Results. Survivorship free of cone revision for aseptic loosening was 100% and survivorship free of any cone revision was 98%. Survivorships free of any revision and any reoperation were 90% and 83%, respectively. Five cones were revised: three for infection, one for periprosthetic fracture, and one for aseptic tibial loosening. Radiologically, three unrevised femoral cones appeared loose in the presence of hinged implants, while the remaining cones appeared stable. All cases of cone loosening occurred in patients with Type 2B or 3 defects. The mean Knee Society score (KSS) improved significantly from 50 (0 to 94) preoperatively to 87 (72 to 94) (p < 0.001). Three intraoperative fractures with cone impaction (two femoral, one tibial) healed uneventfully. Conclusion. Novel 3D-printed titanium cones, with a reamer-based system, yielded excellent early survivorship and few complications in patients with severe bone loss undergoing difficult revision TKA. The diversity of cone options, relative ease of preparation, and outcomes rivalling those of previous designs of cone support their continued use. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):107–115

Metaphyseal bone loss is common with revision total knee replacement (RTKR). Using the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification, type 2-B and type 3 defects usually require large metal blocks, bulk structural allograft or highly porous metal cones. Tibial and femoral trabecular metal metaphyseal cones are a unique solution for large bone defects. These cones substitute for bone loss, improve metaphyseal fixation, help correct malalignment, restore the joint line and may permit use of a shorter stem. The technique for insertion involves sculpturing of the remaining bone with a high speed burr and rasp, followed by press-fit of the cone into the metaphysis. The fixation and osteoconductive properties of the porous cone outer surface allow ingrowth and encourage long-term biological fixation. The revision knee component is then cemented into the porous cone inner surface, which provides superior fixation compared with cementing into native but deficient metaphyseal bone. The advantages of the cone compared with allograft include: technical ease, biological fixation, no resorption, and possibly a lower risk of infection. The disadvantages include: difficult extraction and relatively short-term follow-up. Several studies using cones report promising short-term results for the reconstruction of large bone defects in RTKR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):118–21.

Aims. Varus-valgus constrained (VVC) implants are often used during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to gain coronal plane stability. However, the increased mechanical torque applied to the bone-cement interface theoretically increases the risk of aseptic loosening. We assessed mid-term survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes of a fixed-bearing VVC device in revision TKAs. Methods. A total of 416 consecutive revision TKAs (398 patients) were performed at our institution using a single fixed-bearing VVC TKA from 2007 to 2015. Mean age was 64 years (33 to 88) with 50% male (199). Index revision TKA diagnoses were: instability (n = 122, 29%), aseptic loosening (n = 105, 25%), and prosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 97, 23%). All devices were cemented on the epiphyseal surfaces. Femoral stems were used in 97% (n = 402) of cases, tibial stems in 95% (n = 394) of cases; all were cemented. In total, 93% (n = 389) of cases required a stemmed femoral and tibial component. Femoral cones were used in 29%, and tibial cones in 40%. Survivorship was assessed via competing risk analysis; clinical outcomes were determined using Knee Society Scores (KSSs) and range of movement (ROM). Mean follow-up was four years (2 to 10). Results. The five-year cumulative incidence of subsequent revision for aseptic loosening and instability were 2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2 to 3, number at risk = 154) and 4% (95% CI 2 to 6, number at risk = 153), respectively. The five-year cumulative incidence of any subsequent revision was 14% (95% CI 10 to 18, number at risk = 150). Reasons for subsequent revision included PJI (n = 23, of whom 12 had previous PJI), instability (n = 13), and aseptic loosening (n = 11). The use of this implant without stems was found to be a significant risk factor for subsequent revision (hazard ratio (HR) 7.58 (95% CI 3.98 to 16.03); p = 0.007). KSS improved from 46 preoperatively to 81 at latest follow-up (p < 0.001). ROM improved from 96° prerevision to 108° at latest follow-up (p = 0.016). Conclusion. The cumulative incidence of subsequent revision for aseptic loosening and instability was very low at five years with this fixed-bearing VVC implant in revision TKAs. Routine use of cemented and stemmed components with targeted use of metaphyseal cones likely contributed to this low rate of aseptic loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):458–462

Aims

Tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) facilitates surgical exposure and protects the extensor mechanism during revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). The purpose of this study was to determine the rates of bony union, complications, and reoperations following TTO during rTKA, to assess the functional outcomes of rTKA with TTO at two years’ minimum follow-up, and to identify the risk factors of failure.

Aims

Aseptic loosening of the tibial component is a frequent cause of failure in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Management options include an isolated tibial revision or full component revision. A full component revision is frequently selected by surgeons unfamiliar with the existing implant or who simply wish to “start again”. This option adds morbidity compared with an isolated tibial revision. While isolated tibial revision has a lower morbidity, it is technically more challenging due to difficulties with exposure and maintaining prosthetic stability. This study was designed to compare these two reconstructive options.

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).

Aims

Stemmed tibial components are frequently used in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction, overall pain, and diaphyseal tibial pain in patients who underwent revision TKA with cemented or uncemented stemmed tibial components.

We report the results of revision total knee replacement (TKR) in 26 patients with major metaphyseal osteolytic defects using 29 trabecular metal cones in conjunction with a rotating hinged total knee prosthesis. The osteolytic defects were types II and III (A or B) according to the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification. The mean age of the patients was 72 years (62 to 84) and there were 15 men and 11 women. In this series patients had undergone a mean of 2.34 previous total knee arthroplasties. The main objective was to restore anatomy along with stability and function of the knee joint to allow immediate full weight-bearing and active knee movement. Outcomes were measured using Knee Society scores, Oxford knee scores, range of movement of the knee and serial radiographs. Patients were followed for a mean of 36 months (24 to 49). The mean Oxford knee clinical scores improved from 12.83 (10 to 15) to 35.20 (32 to 38) (p < 0.001) and mean American Knee Society scores improved from 33.24 (13 to 36) to 81.12 (78 to 86) (p < 0.001). No radiolucent lines suggestive of loosening were seen around the trabecular metal cones, and by one year all the radiographs showed good osteo-integration. There was no evidence of any collapse or implant migration. Our early results confirm the findings of others that trabecular metal cones offer a useful way of managing severe bone loss in revision TKR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1069–74.

Bone loss in the proximal tibia and distal femur is frequently encountered in revision knee replacement surgery. The various options for dealing with this depend on the extent of any bone loss. We present our results with the use of cementless metaphyseal metal sleeves in 103 patients (104 knees) with a mean follow-up of 43 months (30 to 65). At final follow-up, sleeves in 102 knees had good osseointegration. Two tibial sleeves were revised for loosening, possibly due to infection.

The average pre-operative Oxford Knee Score was 23 (11 to 36) and this improved to 32 (15 to 46) post-operatively. These early results encourage us to continue with the technique and monitor the outcomes in the long term.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1640–4.