Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Metaphyseal Sleeves and Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

Abstract

As the number of primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) increases, revision procedures are also projected to significantly increase. Bone defects are frequently encountered in revision surgery. Oftentimes, these defects exceed those anticipated and can be addressed through the use of metaphyseal sleeves and cones. Biomaterials, whether porous titanium or tantalum, aid in the success of revision TKAs by promoting osseointegration and providing structural stability for the implants. Indications for metaphyseal sleeves include patients with small bone defects typically categorized as Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) Type 1 or 2A. Metaphyseal cones are used in patients with larger bone defects typically categorized as AORI Type 2B or 3. Sleeves are usually linked to one particular prosthesis, whereas cones are manufactured by a number of companies, come in many shapes and sizes, and are implanted separate from the final prosthesis implantation. The short- and midterm data on both have been promising.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Iorio R, Robb WJ, Healy WL, Berry DJ, Hozack WJ, Kyle RF, Lewallen DG, Trousdale RT, Jiranek WA, Stamos VP, Parsley BS. Orthopaedic surgeon workforce and volume assessment for total hip and knee replacement in the United States: preparing for an epidemic. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(7):1598–605.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Long WJ, Bryce CD, Hollenbeak CS, Benner RW, Scott WN. Total knee replacement in young, active patients: long-term follow-up and functional outcome: a concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(18):e159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Losina E, Thornhill TS, Rome BN, Wright J, Katz JN. The dramatic increase in total knee replacement utilization rates in the United States cannot be fully explained by growth in population size and the obesity epidemic. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(3):201–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Wier LM (Thomson Reuters), Pfuntner A (Thomson Reuters), Maeda J (Thomson Reuters), Stranges E (Thomson Reuters), Ryan K (Thomson Reuters), Jagadish P (AHRQ), Collins Sharp B (AHRQ), Elixhauser A (AHRQ). HCUP facts and figures: statistics on hospital-based care in the United States, 2009. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports.jsp.

  5. Harryson OL, Robertson O, Nayfeh JF. Higher cumulative revision rate of knee arthroplasties in younger patients with osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;421:162–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K, Nathan C, Lau E, Halpern M. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(7):1487–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rorabeck CH, Smith PN. Results of revision total knee arthroplasty in the face of significant bony deficiency. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998;29(2):361–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Haidukewych GJ, Hanssen AD, Jones RD. Metaphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: indications and techniques. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19(6):311–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Morgan-Jones R, Oussedik SIS, Graichen H, Haddad FS. Zonal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(2):147–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ritter MA. Screw and cement fixation of large defects in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 1986;1(2):125–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ritter MA, Keating M, Faris PM. Screw and cement fixation of large defects in total knee arthroplasty. A sequel. J Arthroplast. 1993;8(1):63–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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(5):907–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Levine BR, Sporer S, Poggie RA, Della Valle CJ, Jacobs JJ. Experimental and clinical performance of porous tantalum in orthopedic surgery. Biomaterials. 2006;27(27):4671–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Riley LH Jr. The evolution of total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;(120):7–10.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gonzalez MH, Mekhail AO. The failed total knee arthroplasty: evaluation and etiology. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2004;12(6):436–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Abdel MP, Pulido L, Severson EP, Hanssen AD. Stepwise surgical correction of instability in flexion after total knee replacement. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(12):1644–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. McArthur BA, Abdel MP, Taunton MJ, Osmon DR, Hanssen AD. Seronegative infections in hip and knee arthroplasty: periprosthetic infections with normal erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(7):939–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bourne R. Procedure 15-principles of revision total knee replacement. In: Scott WN, Hanssen AD, editors. Total knee replacement: operative techniques. Philadelphia: Saunders-Elsevier; 2009. p. 222.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Reish TG, Clarke HD, Scuderi GR, Math KR, Scott WN. Use of multi-detector computed tomography for the detection of periprosthetic osteolysis in total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2006;19(4):259–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rand JA. Bone deficiency in total knee arthroplasty. Use of metal wedge augmentation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;271:63–71.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Stockley I, McAuley JP, Gross AE. Allograft reconstruction in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74(3):393–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect. 1999;48:167–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sculco TP. Bone grafting in total knee arthroplasty. In: Scott WN, editor. The knee. New York: Mosby-Year Book; 1994. p. 1333–44.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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;150:263–70.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cameron HU, Pilliar RM, Macnab I. The rate of bone ingrowth into porous metal. J Biomed Mater Res. 1976;10(2):295–302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ducheyne P, Hench LL, Kagan AH, Martens M, The MJC. Effect of hydroxyapatite impregnation on bonding of porous coated implants. J Biomed Mater Res. 1980;14(3):225–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Meneghini M, 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(1):78–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:13–4.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Yuan BJ, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Porous metal acetabular components have a low rate of mechanical failure in THA after operatively treated acetabular fracture. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(2):536–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Issack PS. Use of porous tantalum for acetabular reconstruction in revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(21):1981–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Joglekar SB, Rose PS, Lewallen DG, Sim FH. Tantalum acetabular cups provide secure fixation in THA after pelvic irradiation at minimum 5-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:3041–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Meneghini RM, Meyer C, Buckley CA, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. Mechanical stability of novel highly porous metal acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2010;25:337–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sporer SM, Paprosky WG. Acetabular revision using a trabecular metal acetabular component for severe acetabular bone loss associated with a pelvic discontinuity. J Arthroplast. 2006;21:87–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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):123–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ayers DC, Greene M, Snyder B, Aubin M, Drew J, Bragdon C. Radiostereometric analysis study of tantalum compared with titanium acetabular cups and highly cross-linked compared with conventional liners in young patients undergoing total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(8):627–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Jafari SM, Bender BD, Coyle C, Parvizi J, Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ. Do tantalum and titanium cups show similar results in revision hip arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(2):459–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES. Tantalum components in difficult acetabular revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(2):454–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Della Valle CJ, Mesko NW, Quigley L, Rosenberg AG, Jacobs JJ, Galante JO. Primary total hip arthroplasty with a porous-coated acetabular component. A concise follow-up, at a minimum of twenty years, of previous reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(5):1130–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Banks J. Adding value in additive manufacturing: researchers in the United Kingdom and Europe look to 3D printing for customization. IEEE Pulse. 2013;4(6):22–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hoy MB. 3D printing: making things at the library. Med Ref Serv Q. 2013;32(1):94–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ventola CL. Medical applications for 3D printing: current and projected uses. PT. 2014;39(10):704–11.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Huang R, Barrazueta G, Ong A, Orozco F, Jafari M, Coyle C, Austin M. Revision total knee arthroplasty using metaphyseal sleeves at short-term follow-up. Orthopaedics. 2014;37(9):e804–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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(5):478–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 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. 2009, 1:131–8.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Schildhauer TA, Robie B, Muhr G, Koller M. Bacterial adherence to tantalum versus commonly used orthopedic metallic implant materials. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20(7):476–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Schildhauer TA, Peter E, Muhr G, et al. Activation of human leukocytes on tantalum trabecular metal in comparison to commonly used orthopedic metal implant materials. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2009;88(2):332–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Long WJ, Scuderi GR. Porous tantalum cones for large metaphyseal tibial defects in revision TKA: a minimum 2-year follow up. J Arthroplast. 2009;24(7):1086–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Barnett SL, Mayer RR, Gondusky JS, Choi L, Patel JJ, Gorab RS. Use of stepped porous titanium metaphyseal sleeves for tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: short term results. J Arthroplast. 2014;29(6):1219–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bugler KE, Maheshwari R, Ahmed I, Brenkel IJ, Walmsley PJ. Metaphyseal sleeves for revision total knee arthroplasty: good short-term outcomes. J Arthroplast. 2015; pii: S0883–5403(15)00384–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.05.015. [Epub ahead of print].

  50. 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(1):199–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kamath AF, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty: a five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(3):216–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Jensen CL, Petersen MM, Schroder HM, Lund B. Bone mineral density changes of the proximal tibia after revision total knee arthroplasty: a randomized study with the use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones. Int Orthop. 2012;36(9):1857–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 5777 East Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA

    Kelly L. Scott M.D.

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street S.W, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    Matthew P. Abdel M.D. & Arlen D. Hanssen M.D.

Authors
  1. Kelly L. Scott M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew P. Abdel M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arlen D. Hanssen M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelly L. Scott M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    James V. Bono

  2. Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emeritus, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Richard D. Scott

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Scott, K.L., Abdel, M.P., Hanssen, A.D. (2018). Metaphyseal Sleeves and Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. In: Bono, J., Scott, R. (eds) Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67344-8_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67344-8_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-67342-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-67344-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation