J Knee Surg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2086-4820
Original Article

Clinical Outcomes of Offset Stem Couplers with or without Cone Augmentation in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

Benjamin Fiedler
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
Thomas Bieganowski
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
Vivek Singh
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
Scott Marwin
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
Ran Schwarzkopf
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations


Intramedullary stems are often required in patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) to achieve stable fixation. Significant bone loss may require the addition of a metal cone to maximize fixation and osteointegration. The purpose of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes in rTKA using different fixation techniques. We conducted a single-institution retrospective review of all patients who received a tibial and femoral stem during rTKA between August 2011 and July 2021. Patients were separated into three cohorts based on fixation construct: press-fit stem with an offset coupler (OS), fully cemented straight (CS) stem, and press-fit straight (PFS) stem. A subanalysis of patients who received tibial cone augmentation was also conducted. A total of 358 patients who underwent rTKA were included in this study, of which 102 (28.5%) had a minimum 2-year follow-up and 25 (7.0%) had a minimum 5-year follow-up. In the primary analysis, 194 patients were included in the OS cohort, 72 in the CS cohort, and 92 in the PFS cohort. When stem type alone was considered, there was no significant difference in rerevision rate (p = 0.431) between cohorts. Subanalysis of patients who received augmentation with a tibial cone demonstrated that OS implants led to significantly higher rates of rerevision compared with the other two stem types (OS: 18.2% vs. CS: 2.1% vs. PFS: 11.1%; p = 0.037). The findings of the present analysis demonstrate that CS and cones in rTKA may provide more reliable long-term outcomes compared with press-fit stems with OS.

Level III Evidence Retrospective Cohort Study.

Publication History

Received: 08 March 2022

Accepted: 02 May 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
04 May 2023

Article published online:
01 June 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

  • References

  • 1 Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth NP. Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 (17) 1455-1460
  • 2 Hamilton DF, Howie CR, Burnett R, Simpson AHRW, Patton JT. Dealing with the predicted increase in demand for revision total knee arthroplasty: challenges, risks and opportunities. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (06) 723-728
  • 3 Chawla H, van der List JP, Christ AB, Sobrero MR, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD. Annual revision rates of partial versus total knee arthroplasty: a comparative meta-analysis. Knee 2017; 24 (02) 179-190
  • 4 Graichen H. TKA revision - reasons, challenges and solutions. J Orthop 2014; 11 (01) 1-4
  • 5 Sculco PK, Abdel MP, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. The management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty: rebuild, reinforce, and augment. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (1, Suppl A): 120-124
  • 6 Rosso F, Cottino U, Dettoni F, Bruzzone M, Bonasia DE, Rossi R. Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA): mid-term outcomes and bone loss/quality evaluation and treatment. J Orthop Surg Res 2019; 14 (01) 280 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-019-1328-1.
  • 7 Wang C, Pfitzner T, von Roth P, Mayr HO, Sostheim M, Hube R. Fixation of stem in revision of total knee arthroplasty: cemented versus cementless-a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (10) 3200-3211
  • 8 Patel AR, Barlow B, Ranawat AS. Stem length in revision total knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015; 8 (04) 407-412
  • 9 Meijer MF, Boerboom AL, Stevens M. et al. Tibial component with and without stem extension in a trabecular metal cone construct. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (11) 3644-3652
  • 10 Kang SG, Park CH, Song SJ. Stem fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: indications, stem dimensions, and fixation methods. Knee Surg Relat Res 2018; 30 (03) 187-192
  • 11 Xie S, Conlisk N, Hamilton D, Scott C, Burnett R, Pankaj P. Metaphyseal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty: the role of stems. Bone Joint Res 2020; 9 (04) 162-172
  • 12 Hasandoost L, Rodriguez O, Alhalawani A. et al. The role of poly(methyl methacrylate) in management of bone loss and infection in revision total knee arthroplasty: a review. J Funct Biomater 2020; 11 (02) 25 DOI: 10.3390/jfb11020025.
  • 13 Bonanzinga T, Gehrke T, Zahar A, Zaffagnini S, Marcacci M, Haasper C. Are trabecular metal cones a valid option to treat metaphyseal bone defects in complex primary and revision knee arthroplasty?. Joints 2017; 6 (01) 58-64
  • 14 Kosse NM, van Hellemondt GG, Wymenga AB, Heesterbeek PJC. Comparable stability of cemented vs press-fit placed stems in revision total knee arthroplasty with mild to moderate bone loss: 6.5-year results from a randomized controlled trial with radiostereometric analysis. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (01) 197-201
  • 15 Kemker BP, Sowers CB, Seedat R. et al. Comparing revision total knee arthroplasty stems at a high-volume revision center. Front Surg 2022; 9: 716510 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.716510.
  • 16 Baldini A, Balato G, Franceschini V. The role of offset stems in revision knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015; 8 (04) 383-389
  • 17 Innocenti M, Matassi F, Carulli C, Soderi S, Villano M, Civinini R. Joint line position in revision total knee arthroplasty: the role of posterior femoral off-set stems. Knee 2013; 20 (06) 447-450
  • 18 Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007; 39 (02) 175-191
  • 19 Pietrzak J, Common H, Migaud H, Pasquier G, Girard J, Putman S. Have the frequency of and reasons for revision total knee arthroplasty changed since 2000? Comparison of two cohorts from the same hospital: 255 cases (2013-2016) and 68 cases (1991-1998). Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2019; 105 (04) 639-645
  • 20 Lombardi Jr AV, MacDonald SJ, Lewallen DG, Fehring TK. Four challenges in revision total knee arthroplasty: exposure, safe and effective component removal, bone deficit management, and fixation. Instr Course Lect 2019; 68: 217-230
  • 21 Geary MB, Macknet DM, Ransone MP, Odum SD, Springer BD. Why do revision total knee arthroplasties fail? A single-center review of 1632 revision total knees comparing historic and modern cohorts. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (10) 2938-2943
  • 22 Mortazavi SMJ, Molligan J, Austin MS, Purtill JJ, Hozack WJ, Parvizi J. Failure following revision total knee arthroplasty: infection is the major cause. Int Orthop 2011; 35 (08) 1157-1164
  • 23 Edwards PK, Fehring TK, Hamilton WG, Perricelli B, Beaver WB, Odum SM. Are cementless stems more durable than cemented stems in two-stage revisions of infected total knee arthroplasties?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (01) 206-211
  • 24 De Martino I, De Santis V, Sculco PK, D'Apolito R, Assini JB, Gasparini G. Tantalum cones provide durable mid-term fixation in revision TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (10) 3176-3182
  • 25 Alipit V, Kirk A, Scholl D, Schmidig G, Springer BD, Lee G-C. Micromotion analysis of various tibial constructs in moderate tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (01) 362-367 .e1
  • 26 Jacquet C, Ros F, Guy S, Parratte S, Ollivier M, Argenson J-N. Trabecular metal cones combined with short cemented stem allow favorable outcomes in aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (02) 657-663
  • 27 Erivan R, Tracey R, Mulliez A, Villatte G, Paprosky W. Medium term clinical outcomes of tibial cones in revision knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2021; 141 (01) 113-118
  • 28 Driesman AS, Macaulay W, Schwarzkopf R. Cemented versus cementless stems in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2019; 32 (08) 704-709
  • 29 Morgan-Jones R, Oussedik SIS, Graichen H, Haddad FS. Zonal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (02) 147-149
  • 30 Duchman KR, Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Gao Y, Bedard NA, Callaghan JJ. Operative time affects short-term complications in total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (04) 1285-1291
  • 31 Naranje S, Lendway L, Mehle S, Gioe TJ. Does operative time affect infection rate in primary total knee arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (01) 64-69
  • 32 Young SW, Mutu-Grigg J, Frampton CM, Cullen J. Does speed matter? Revision rates and functional outcomes in TKA in relation to duration of surgery. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (07) 1473-1477 .e1
  • 33 Chen AZ, Gu A, Wei C. et al. Increase in operative time is associated with postoperative complications in revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2021; 44 (01) 18-22
  • 34 Garbarino LJ, Gold PA, Sodhi N. et al. The effect of operative time on in-hospital length of stay in revision total knee arthroplasty. Ann Transl Med 2019; 7 (04) 66-66