Cargando…

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

Purpose  Metaphyseal bone defects are a challenge in complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Recently, several studies have been published with promising results about the use of Trabecular Metal (TM) cones to address bone defects. The aim of this study is to review the literatur...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bonanzinga, Tommaso, Gehrke, Thorsten, Zahar, Akos, Zaffagnini, Stefano, Marcacci, Maurilio, Haasper, Carl
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2017
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5906107/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29675508
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1608950
_version_ 1783315352233443328
author Bonanzinga, Tommaso
Gehrke, Thorsten
Zahar, Akos
Zaffagnini, Stefano
Marcacci, Maurilio
Haasper, Carl
author_facet Bonanzinga, Tommaso
Gehrke, Thorsten
Zahar, Akos
Zaffagnini, Stefano
Marcacci, Maurilio
Haasper, Carl
author_sort Bonanzinga, Tommaso
collection PubMed
description Purpose  Metaphyseal bone defects are a challenge in complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Recently, several studies have been published with promising results about the use of Trabecular Metal (TM) cones to address bone defects. The aim of this study is to review the literature to assess the efficacy of TM cones to address metaphyseal bone loss. Methods  A comprehensive search was performed on PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar databases using various combinations of the following keywords: “metaphyseal,” “cones,” “tantalum,” “knee,” and “revision.” Only papers reporting clinical data about the use of trabecular metal cones were included in the analysis. In vitro studies, case reports, surgical technique, or other studies where it was not possible to collect clinical data were excluded. Patients characteristics, details of the surgical procedures, outcome, and complications were collected from each included study. Results  No controlled studies were available in the literature and all the papers were case series. In 16 studies included, the records of 442 patients with 447 implants and 523 TM cones were reported. The mean follow-up was 42 months (range: 5–105) for 360 procedures. Among 437 procedures, 30.4% were septic revisions. The Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification was available for 352 defects: 13 type 1, 69 type 2A, 115 type 2B, and 155 type 3. To manage these 352 defects, 360 TM cones were implanted. Intraoperative fractures occurred 13 times (10 femoral/3 tibial), 6 required surgical fixation. The overall infection rate was 7.38%, and the infection rate for the aseptic procedures was 0.99%. An aseptic exchange was performed 13 times, among these procedures two TM cones were loose. Signs of loosening were found just in 1.3% of the 523 TM cones implanted (5 femoral/2 tibial) during 447 procedures. Conclusion  The TM cones are an effective solution to manage bone defects in complex primary and revision TKA at intermediate follow-up. The incidence of complications was low; however, the femoral metaphysis proved to be more susceptible to complications. Level of Evidence  Level IV, systematic review of level IV studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5906107
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Georg Thieme Verlag KG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59061072018-04-19 Are Trabecular Metal Cones a Valid Option to Treat Metaphyseal Bone Defects in Complex Primary and Revision Knee Arthroplasty? Bonanzinga, Tommaso Gehrke, Thorsten Zahar, Akos Zaffagnini, Stefano Marcacci, Maurilio Haasper, Carl Joints Purpose  Metaphyseal bone defects are a challenge in complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Recently, several studies have been published with promising results about the use of Trabecular Metal (TM) cones to address bone defects. The aim of this study is to review the literature to assess the efficacy of TM cones to address metaphyseal bone loss. Methods  A comprehensive search was performed on PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar databases using various combinations of the following keywords: “metaphyseal,” “cones,” “tantalum,” “knee,” and “revision.” Only papers reporting clinical data about the use of trabecular metal cones were included in the analysis. In vitro studies, case reports, surgical technique, or other studies where it was not possible to collect clinical data were excluded. Patients characteristics, details of the surgical procedures, outcome, and complications were collected from each included study. Results  No controlled studies were available in the literature and all the papers were case series. In 16 studies included, the records of 442 patients with 447 implants and 523 TM cones were reported. The mean follow-up was 42 months (range: 5–105) for 360 procedures. Among 437 procedures, 30.4% were septic revisions. The Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification was available for 352 defects: 13 type 1, 69 type 2A, 115 type 2B, and 155 type 3. To manage these 352 defects, 360 TM cones were implanted. Intraoperative fractures occurred 13 times (10 femoral/3 tibial), 6 required surgical fixation. The overall infection rate was 7.38%, and the infection rate for the aseptic procedures was 0.99%. An aseptic exchange was performed 13 times, among these procedures two TM cones were loose. Signs of loosening were found just in 1.3% of the 523 TM cones implanted (5 femoral/2 tibial) during 447 procedures. Conclusion  The TM cones are an effective solution to manage bone defects in complex primary and revision TKA at intermediate follow-up. The incidence of complications was low; however, the femoral metaphysis proved to be more susceptible to complications. Level of Evidence  Level IV, systematic review of level IV studies. Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2017-12-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5906107/ /pubmed/29675508 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1608950 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Bonanzinga, Tommaso
Gehrke, Thorsten
Zahar, Akos
Zaffagnini, Stefano
Marcacci, Maurilio
Haasper, Carl
Are Trabecular Metal Cones a Valid Option to Treat Metaphyseal Bone Defects in Complex Primary and Revision Knee Arthroplasty?
title Are Trabecular Metal Cones a Valid Option to Treat Metaphyseal Bone Defects in Complex Primary and Revision Knee Arthroplasty?
title_full Are Trabecular Metal Cones a Valid Option to Treat Metaphyseal Bone Defects in Complex Primary and Revision Knee Arthroplasty?
title_fullStr Are Trabecular Metal Cones a Valid Option to Treat Metaphyseal Bone Defects in Complex Primary and Revision Knee Arthroplasty?
title_full_unstemmed Are Trabecular Metal Cones a Valid Option to Treat Metaphyseal Bone Defects in Complex Primary and Revision Knee Arthroplasty?
title_short Are Trabecular Metal Cones a Valid Option to Treat Metaphyseal Bone Defects in Complex Primary and Revision Knee Arthroplasty?
title_sort are trabecular metal cones a valid option to treat metaphyseal bone defects in complex primary and revision knee arthroplasty?
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5906107/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29675508
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1608950
work_keys_str_mv AT bonanzingatommaso aretrabecularmetalconesavalidoptiontotreatmetaphysealbonedefectsincomplexprimaryandrevisionkneearthroplasty
AT gehrkethorsten aretrabecularmetalconesavalidoptiontotreatmetaphysealbonedefectsincomplexprimaryandrevisionkneearthroplasty
AT zaharakos aretrabecularmetalconesavalidoptiontotreatmetaphysealbonedefectsincomplexprimaryandrevisionkneearthroplasty
AT zaffagninistefano aretrabecularmetalconesavalidoptiontotreatmetaphysealbonedefectsincomplexprimaryandrevisionkneearthroplasty
AT marcaccimaurilio aretrabecularmetalconesavalidoptiontotreatmetaphysealbonedefectsincomplexprimaryandrevisionkneearthroplasty
AT haaspercarl aretrabecularmetalconesavalidoptiontotreatmetaphysealbonedefectsincomplexprimaryandrevisionkneearthroplasty