Management of Severe Femoral Bone Loss

  • Alfred J. TriaEmail author
  • Richard W. Rutherford
  • Douglas A. DennisEmail author
  • David G. Lewallen
  • R. Michael Meneghini
  • Kirsten Jansen


Severe femoral bone loss can be the result of aseptic or septic loosening, periprosthetic fracture, or iatrogenic bone loss secondary to the implant removal. The Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification has become a standard. The F1 defects can almost be ignored and require simple autografting or cement fill. The F2 defects are slightly more complicated with some associated cortical loss and require defect reconstruction and intramedullary stems. The F3 defects involve bone loss and soft tissue compromise and require defect reconstruction and ligamentous support from the prosthetic device itself.


Bone loss Wedges Stems Cones Sleeves 


  1. 1.
    Lucey SD, Scuderi GR, Kelly MA, Insall JN. A practical approach to dealing with bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2000;23(10):1036–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect. 1999;48:167–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Classification and preoperative radiographic evaluation: knee. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998;29(2):205–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mulhall KJ, Ghomrawi HM, Engh GA, Clark CR, Lotke P, Saleh KJ. Radiographic prediction of intraoperative bone loss in knee arthroplasty revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;446:51–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mason JB, Fehring TK, Odum SM, Griffin WL, Nussman DS. The value of white blood cell counts before revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2003;18(8):1038–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Trampuz A, Hanssen AD, Osmon DR, Mandrekar J, Steckelberg JM, Patel R. Synovial fluid leukocyte count and differential for the diagnosis of prosthetic knee infection. Am J Med. 2004;117(8):556–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schäfer P, Fink B, Sandow D, Margull A, Berger I, Frommelt L. Prolonged bacterial culture to identify late periprosthetic joint infection: a promising strategy. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;47(11):1403–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lombardi AV, Berend KR, Adams JB. Management of bone loss in revision TKA: it’s a changing world. Orthopedics. 2010;33(9):662.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buck BE, Malinin TI, Brown MD. Bone transplantation and human immunodeficiency virus. An estimate of risk of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;(240):129–36.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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(2):420–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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-A(3):404–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beckmann NA, Mueller S, Gondan M, Jaeger S, Reiner T, Bitsch RG. Treatment of severe bone defects during revision total knee arthroplasty with structural allografts and porous metal cones-a systematic review. J Arthroplast. 2015;30(2):249–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haidukewych GJ, Hanssen A, Jones RD. Metaphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: indications and techniques. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19(6):311–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lachiewicz PF, Watters TS. Porous metal metaphyseal cones for severe bone loss: when only metal will do. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):118–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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;429:201–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bobyn JD, Poggie RA, Krygier JJ, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD, Lewis RJ, et al. Clinical validation of a structural porous tantalum biomaterial for adult reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;87(Suppl 2):123–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bauman RD, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Limitations of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(3):818–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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(1):78–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Long WJ, Scuderi GR. Porous tantalum cones for large metaphyseal tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Arthroplast. 2009;24(7):1086–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Patil N, Lee K, Goodman SB. Porous tantalum in hip and knee reconstructive surgery. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009;89(1):242–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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(1):199–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kamath AF, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(3):216–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Potter GDIII, Abdel MP, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Midterm results of porous tantalum femoral cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(15):1286–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saidi K, Ben-Lulu O, Tsuji M, Safir O, Gross AE, Backstein D. Supracondylar periprosthetic fractures of the knee in the elderly patients: a comparison of treatment using allograft-implant composites, standard revision components, distal femoral replacement prosthesis. J Arthroplast. 2014;29(1):110–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jassim SS, McNamara I, Hopgood P. Distal femoral replacement in periprosthetic fracture around total knee arthroplasty. Injury. 2014;45(3):550–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mortazavi SM, Kurd MF, Bender B, Post Z, Parvizi J, Purtill JJ. Distal femoral arthroplasty for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2010;25(5):775–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr. Distal femoral replacement in nontumor cases with severe bone loss and instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467(2):485–492.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Springer BD, Sim FH, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. The modular segmental kinematic rotating hinge for nonneoplastic limb salvage. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;421:181–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Springer BD, Hanssen AD, Sim FH, Lewallen DG. The kinematic rotating hinge prosthesis for complex knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;392:283–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Barrack RL. Evolution of the rotating hinge for complex total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;392:292–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Westrich GH, Mollano AV, Sculco TP, Buly RL, Laskin RS, Windsor R. Rotating hinge total knee arthroplasty in severely affected knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;379:195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Barrack RL, Lyons TR, Ingraham RQ, Johnson JC. The use of a modular rotating hinge component in salvage revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2000;15(7):858–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hart GP, Kneisl JS, Springer BD, Patt JC, Karunakar MA. Open reduction vs distal femoral replacement arthroplasty for comminuted distal femur fractures in the patients 70 years and older. J Arthroplast. 2017;32(1):202–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfred J. Tria
    • 1
    Email author
  • Richard W. Rutherford
    • 2
  • Douglas A. Dennis
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • David G. Lewallen
    • 5
  • R. Michael Meneghini
    • 6
  • Kirsten Jansen
    • 6
  1. 1.Orthopedic Center of New JerseySomersetUSA
  2. 2.Colorado Joint Replacement, Porter Adventist HospitalDenverUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical Mechanical and Materials EngineeringUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of OrthopedicsUniversity of Colorado School of MedicineAuroraUSA
  5. 5.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  6. 6.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryIndiana University School of MedicineFishersUSA

Personalised recommendations