Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Joints 2019; 07(01): 019-024
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697611
Review Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Are Metaphyseal Sleeves a Viable Option to Treat Bone Defect during Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review

Tommaso Bonanzinga
1   Center for Functional and Biological Reconstruction of the Knee, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy
,
Ibrahim Akkawi 
2   Orthopaedics and Traumatology Unit, Villa Erbosa Hospital, Bologna, Italy
,
Akos Zahar
3   Joint Replacement Department, Helios ENDO-Klinik, Hamburg, Germany
,
Thorsten Gehrke
3   Joint Replacement Department, Helios ENDO-Klinik, Hamburg, Germany
,
Carl Haasper
3   Joint Replacement Department, Helios ENDO-Klinik, Hamburg, Germany
,
Maurilio Marcacci
1   Center for Functional and Biological Reconstruction of the Knee, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Milan, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

08 December 2017

07 August 2019

Publication Date:
11 October 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose Bone loss is a challenging problem during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Several studies have been published on the use of metaphyseal sleeves during revision TKA. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to summarize the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the use of metaphyseal sleeves in the setting of revision TKA.

Methods A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar was performed, covering the period between January 1, 2000, and August 12, 2017. Various combinations of the following key words were used: “metaphyseal,” “sleeves,” “knee,” and “revision.” A total of 10 studies were included in the present systematic review.

Results A total of 904 patients with 928 implants were recorded with a mean age of 69 years. They were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 45 months. Overall 1,413 sleeves, 888 in the tibia and 525 in the femur, were implanted. There were 36 septic re-revisions of the prosthetic components (4%). Five sleeves were found loose during septic re-revision; therefore, the rate of septic loosening of the sleeves was 0.35%. An aseptic re-revision of the prosthetic components was performed 27 times (3%). Ten sleeves were found loose during aseptic re-revision; therefore, the rate of aseptic loosening of the sleeves was 0.7%. Intraoperative fractures occurred 44 times (3.1%). Finally, clinical outcome was improved at final follow-up.

Conclusion Metaphyseal sleeves demonstrate high radiographic signs of osteointegration, low septic loosening rate, low intraoperative fractures rate, and a good-to-excellent clinical outcome. Hence, they are a valid option to treat large metaphyseal bone defect during revision TKA.

Level of Evidence This is a systematic review of level IV studies.

Keywords

revision total knee arthroplasty - metaphyseal sleeves - AORI - bone defect
 

  • References

  • 1 Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (04) 780-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Radnay CS, Scuderi GR. Management of bone loss: augments, cones, offset stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446 (446) 83-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vasso M, Beaufils P, Cerciello S, Schiavone Panni A. Bone loss following knee arthroplasty: potential treatment options. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2014; 134 (04) 543-553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Haidukewych GJ, Hanssen A, Jones RD. Metaphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: indications and techniques. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2011; 19 (06) 311-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ponzio DY, Austin MS. Metaphyseal bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015; 8 (04) 361-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Brown NM, Bell JA, Jung EK, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG, Levine BR. The use of trabecular metal cones in complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (09) (suppl): 90-93
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Derome P, Sternheim A, Backstein D, Malo M. Treatment of large bone defects with trabecular metal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty: short term clinical and radiographic outcomes. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (01) 122-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kamath AF, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty: a five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (03) 216-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Agarwal S, Azam A, Morgan-Jones R. Metal metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee replacement. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (12) 1640-1644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Alexander GE, Bernasek TL, Crank RL, Haidukewych GJ. Cementless metaphyseal sleeves used for large tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (04) 604-607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Barnett SL, Mayer RR, Gondusky JS, Choi L, Patel JJ, Gorab RS. Use of stepped porous titanium metaphyseal sleeves for tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: short term results. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (06) 1219-1224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Barrack RL. Evolution of the rotating hinge for complex total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (392) 292-299
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bugler KE, Maheshwari R, Ahmed I, Brenkel IJ, Walmsley PJ. Metaphyseal sleeves for revision total knee arthroplasty: good short-term outcomes. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (11) 1990-1994
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Chalmers BP, Desy NM, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Taunton MJ. Survivorship of metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (05) 1565-1570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Dalury DF, Barrett WP. The use of metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2016; 23 (03) 545-548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fedorka CJ, Chen AF, Pagnotto MR, Crossett LS, Klatt BA. Revision total knee arthroplasty with porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves provides radiographic ingrowth and stable fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (05) 1500-1505
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gøttsche D, Lind T, Christiansen T, Schrøder HM. Cementless metaphyseal sleeves without stem in revision total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2016; 136 (12) 1761-1766
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Graichen H, Scior W, Strauch M. Direct, cementless, metaphyseal fixation in knee revision arthroplasty with sleeves-short-term results. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (12) 2256-2259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Huang R, Barrazueta G, Ong A. , et al. Revision total knee arthroplasty using metaphyseal sleeves at short-term follow-up. Orthopedics 2014; 37 (09) e804-e809
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Jones RE, Skedros JG, Chan AJ, Beauchamp DH, Harkins PC. Total knee arthroplasty using the S-ROM mobile-bearing hinge prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16 (03) 279-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Martin-Hernandez C, Floria-Arnal LJ, Muniesa-Herrero MP. , et al. Mid-term results for metaphyseal sleeves in revision knee surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (12) 3779-3785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Watters TS, Martin JR, Levy DL, Yang CC, Kim RH, Dennis DA. Porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves for severe femoral and tibial bone loss in revision TKA. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (11) 3468-3473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Nadorf J, Kinkel S, Gantz S, Jakubowitz E, Kretzer JP. Tibial revision knee arthroplasty with metaphyseal sleeves: the effect of stems on implant fixation and bone flexibility. PLoS One 2017; 12 (05) e0177285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mason JB, Fehring TK. Removing well-fixed total knee arthroplasty implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446 (446) 76-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect 1999; 48: 167-175
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Onkologie 2000; 23 (06) 597-602
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 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 (03) 404-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lotke PA, Carolan GF, Puri N. Impaction grafting for bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446 (446) 99-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 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 (01) 199-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Mabry TM, Hanssen AD. The role of stems and augments for bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (04) (Suppl. 01) 56-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Naim S, Toms AD. Impaction bone grafting for tibial defects in knee replacement surgery. Results at two years. Acta Orthop Belg 2013; 79 (02) 205-210
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Schroer WC, Berend KR, Lombardi AV. , et al. Why are total knees failing today? Etiology of total knee revision in 2010 and 2011. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (08 suppl): 116-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar