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
Comparative Study
. 2024 Nov;144(11):4667-4675.
doi: 10.1007/s00402-024-05226-4. Epub 2024 Mar 19.

Epiphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between trabecular metal and titanium augments

Vincenzo Franceschini  1   2 , Giuseppe Cavallo  1   3 , Alfredo Lamberti  1 , Francesco Pastore  4 , Luca Montenegro  4 , Andrea Baldini  5
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Epiphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between trabecular metal and titanium augments

Vincenzo Franceschini et al. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024 Nov.

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the medium-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of two series of patients treated for revision TKA: one implanted with trabecular metal (TM) augments and one implanted with classic titanium augments.

Materials and methods: A total of 85 patients with a type 2 AORI defect underwent revision TKA and were treated either with TM epiphyseal augments directly screwed in the bone or with traditional titanium augments. There were 46 patients in the TM group and 39 patients in the titanium group included in the study. All the patients received the same varus-valgus constrained implant and no metaphyseal fixation devices were used.

Results: After a mean follow-up of 66.4 months, no statistically significant difference was observed in terms of failure for aseptic loosening between the two groups (4% in the TM group and 7.8% in the titanium group, p = 0.35). The ten-year survival using aseptic loosening as endpoint was 90.5% (95% CI 94.1-98.6) in the TM group and 85% (95% CI 101.9-119.3) in the titanium group (p = 0.26). A statistically significant difference was detected for the presence of RLL. No RLL were found under the studied TM augments compared to 13.7% of the titanium augments (p = 0.01).

Conclusion: The use of TM augments directly screwed to the epiphysis of the femur and the tibia reduced the incidence of RLL compared to standard titanium augments during revision TKA with promising medium-term results.

Keywords: Aseptic loosening; Augment; Revision total knee arthroplasty; Trabecular metal.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Engh GA, Ammeen DJ (1999) Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect 48:167–175 - PubMed
    1. Vince KG, Long W (1995) Revision knee arthroplasty; the limits of press fit medullary fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 317:172–177
    1. Dalury DF, Pomeroy DL, Gorab RS, Adams MJ (2013) Why are total knee arthroplasties being revised? J Arthroplasty 28(8 Suppl):120–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.051 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Morgan-Jones R, Oussedik SI, Graichen H, Haddad FS (2015) Zonal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 97-B(2):147–9. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.34144 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Daines BK, Dennis DA (2012) Management of bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(12):1131–1139. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L00143 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources