Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Dec 14;6(1):58-64.
doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1608950. eCollection 2018 Mar.

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

Affiliations
Review

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

Tommaso Bonanzinga et al. Joints. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: cones; knee; metaphyseal; revision; tantalum.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Prof. Gehrke has received research support and consulting payments from Zimmer and Waldemar Link. Dr. Zahar has received consulting payments from Waldemar Link.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The quality of reporting of meta-analyses (QUOROM) flow diagram, depicting the number of studies identified, included, and excluded as well as the reasons for exclusion.

References

    1. Hilgen V, Citak M, Vettorazzi E et al.10-year results following impaction bone grafting of major bone defects in 29 rotational and hinged knee revision arthroplasties: a follow-up of a previous report. Acta Orthop. 2013;84(04):387–391. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Morgan-Jones R, Oussedik S IS, Graichen H, Haddad F S. Zonal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(02):147–149. - PubMed
    1. Engh G A, Ammeen D J. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect. 1999;48:167–175. - PubMed
    1. Bush J L, Wilson J B, Vail T P. Management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;452(452):186–192. - PubMed
    1. Beckmann N A, Mueller S, Gondan M, Jaeger S, Reiner T, Bitsch R G. Treatment of severe bone defects during revision total knee arthroplasty with structural allografts and porous metal cones-a systematic review. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(02):249–253. - PubMed