Custom-Made Metaphyseal Sleeves in "Beyond" AORI III Defects for Revision Knee Arthroplasty-Proof of Concept and Short-Term Results of a New Technique
- PMID: 37511656
- PMCID: PMC10381695
- DOI: 10.3390/jpm13071043
Custom-Made Metaphyseal Sleeves in "Beyond" AORI III Defects for Revision Knee Arthroplasty-Proof of Concept and Short-Term Results of a New Technique
Abstract
Background: While off-the-shelf cones and sleeves yield good results in AORI type 2 and 3 defects in revision knee surgery, massive longitudinal defects may require a proximal tibia replacement. To achieve the best anatomical as well as biomechanical reconstruction and preserve the tibial tuberosity, we developed custom-made metaphyseal sleeves (CMSs) to reconstruct massive defects with a hinge knee replacement.
Methods: Between 2019 and 2022, 10 patients were treated in a single-center study. The indication for revision was aseptic loosening in five cases and periprosthetic joint infection in five cases. The mean number of previous revisions after the index operations was 7 (SD: 2; 4-12). A postoperative analysis was conducted to evaluate the functional outcome as well as the osteointegrative potential.
Results: Implantation of the CMS in rTKA was carried out in all cases, with a mean operation time of 155 ± 48 (108-256) min. During the follow-up of 23 ± 7 (7-31) months, no CMS was revised and revisions due to other causes were conducted in five cases. Early radiographic evidence of osseointegration was recorded using a validated method. The postoperative OKS showed a significant increase (p < 0.001), with a mean score of 24 (SD: 4; range: 14-31).
Conclusion: Custom-made metaphyseal sleeves show acceptable results in extreme cases. As custom-made components become more and more common, this treatment algorithm presents a viable alternative in complex rTKA.
Keywords: AORI; cone; custom-made; periprosthetic joint infection; proximal tibial replacement; revision knee arthroplasty; sleeve; tibial bone defect.
Conflict of interest statement
C.G. and M.W. have received research support not related to this publication from Implantcast GmbH, Buxtehude, Germany. J.H. has received financial support for scientific projects not related to this publication from Implantcast GmbH, Buxtehude, Germany. Y.H., C.G., J.H., A.S., L.M.J. and M.W. have received speaker honoraria from Implantcast GmbH, Buxtehude, Germany. Y.H. has received a speaker honorarium from Curasan AG, Frankfurt, Germany. L.M.J. has received a speaker honorarium from Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, United States, and Stryker Corporation, Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
Figures
References
-
- Holl S., Schlomberg A., Gosheger G., Dieckmann R., Streitbuerger A., Schulz D., Hardes J. Distal femur and proximal tibia replacement with megaprosthesis in revision knee arthroplasty: A limb-saving procedure. Knee Surg. Sport. Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2012;20:2513–2518. doi: 10.1007/s00167-012-1945-2. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Engh G.A., Parks N.L. The management of bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Instr. Course Lect. 1997;46:227–236. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
