Removal of Well-Fixed Tibial Cone in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty—A Uniquely Challenging Yet Necessary Scenario

Abstract

The number of revision total knee arthroplasties (TKA) performed in the United States continues to increase. While advancements in implant design and surgical technique have led to improved outcomes compared with historical data, these cases remain technically demanding with high rates of aseptic failure and worse patient reported outcome scores compared with primary total knee arthroplasty. One particular problem commonly encountered in revision knee arthroplasty is bone loss, particularly in the epiphyseal region, which negatively impacts the structural integrity of the implants. Various modular metaphyseal sleeves and cones in conjunction with stemmed implants have been designed to enhance metaphyseal fixation, corroborated by multiple studies demonstrating excellent midterm results involving cones, and sleeves. Commercially available revision systems that incorporate metaphyseal cones are currently widely utilized in revision TKA. For tibial defects, both symmetric and asymmetric cone options are available. Excellent midterm results have been reported with use of this device in the setting of severe proximal tibial bone loss in revision TKA surgery. With the enhanced fixation provided by various sleeve and cone augments, implant removal in the setting of recurrent infection or implant failure can be extremely challenging. Consequently, in this work, we sought to describe an algorithmic approach for removing a tibial cone in conjunction with the overlying tibial baseplate. A review of the literature has also been conducted for complex surgical techniques regarding removal of well-fixed implants in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Keywords

metaphyseal tibial cone removal - well-fixed - revision total knee arthroplasty - review - complex removal - osteotome stacking

Publication History

Received: 06 July 2019

Accepted: 18 September 2019

Article published online:
04 November 2019

• 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
• 2 Mulhall KJ, Ghomrawi HM, Scully S, Callaghan JJ, Saleh KJ. Current etiologies and modes of failure in total knee arthroplasty revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446 (446) 45-50
• 3 Kim TK, Chang CB, Kang YG, Kim SJ, Seong SC. Causes and predictors of patient's dissatisfaction after uncomplicated total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24 (02) 263-271
• 4 Fehring TK, Odum S, Griffin WL, Mason JB, Nadaud M. Early failures in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (392) 315-318
• 5 Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, Knutson K, Lidgren L. Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 2000; 71 (03) 262-267
• 6 Labek G, Thaler M, Janda W, Agreiter M, Stöckl B. Revision rates after total joint replacement: cumulative results from worldwide joint register datasets. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (03) 293-297
• 7 Bhandari M, Smith J, Miller LE, Block JE. Clinical and economic burden of revision knee arthroplasty. Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord 2012; 5: 89-94
• 8 Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB. The John Insall Award: Patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 452 (452) 35-43
• 9 Greidanus NV, Peterson RC, Masri BA, Garbuz DS. Quality of life outcomes in revision versus primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (04) 615-620
• 10 Schroer WC, Calvert GT, Diesfeld PJ, Reedy ME, LeMarr AR. Effects of increased surgical volume on total knee arthroplasty complications. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23 (06) (Suppl. 01) 61-67
• 11 Hervey SL, Purves HR, Guller U, Toth AP, Vail TP, Pietrobon R. Provider volume of total knee arthroplasties and patient outcomes in the HCUP-nationwide inpatient sample. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85 (09) 1775-1783
• 12 Critchley RJ, Baker PN, Deehan DJ. Does surgical volume affect outcome after primary and revision knee arthroplasty? A systematic review of the literature. Knee 2012; 19 (05) 513-518
• 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 Masri BA, Mitchell PA, Duncan CP. Removal of solidly fixed implants during revision hip and knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2005; 13 (01) 18-27
• 15 Massin P, Boyer P, Sabourin M, Jeanrot C. Removal of infected cemented hinge knee prostheses using extended femoral and tibial osteotomies: six cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2012; 98 (07) 840-844
• 16 Aidan C. McGrory, Lee Replogle, and Donald Endrizzi. Ultrasound gel minimizes third body debris with partial hardware removal in joint arthroplasty. Arthroplasty Today 2017; 3 (01) 29-31
• 17 Faizan A, Bhowmik-Stoker M, Alipit V. et al. Development and verification of novel porous titanium metaphyseal cones for revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (06) 1946-1953
• 18 Windsor RE, Scuderi GR, Insall JN. Revision of well-fixed cemented, porous total knee arthroplasty. Report of six cases. J Arthroplasty 1988; 3 (Suppl): S87-S94
• 19 Klein GR, Levine HB, Hartzband MA. Removal of a well-fixed trabecular metal monoblock tibial component. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23 (04) 619-622
• 20 Martin JR, Watters TS, Levy DL, Jennings JM, Dennis DA. Removing a well-fixed femoral sleeve during revision total knee arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today 2016; 2 (04) 171-175