Revision total knee arthroplasty: experience with tantalum cones in severe bone loss

Unveiling the link: highly porous tantalum-augmented implants and periprosthetic joint infection in revision total knee arthroplasty-a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The trend of the literature suggests that tantalum (Ta) may possess antibacterial properties. However, no consensus has been reached on Ta's preventive role in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA).

QUESTION

What is the PJI incidence rate after rTKA using Ta-augmented implants for both septic and all-cause revision reasons? Is there a difference in the PJI rate following rTKA performed using Ta-augmented implants compared to non-Ta implants?

METHODS

Using 5 major databases, the authors searched for studies reporting the rate of PJIs following rTKA using Ta-augmented implants until January 2022. The PJI rates for the Ta group were pooled, compared to the control group, and presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using forest plots.

RESULTS

Thirty eligible studies involving 881 knees were included. The overall PJI rate following rTKA using Ta-augmented implants was 8.1% (CI = 6.6%-9.9%). Specifically, in cases of septic revision, the infection rate was 15.7% (95% CI = 11.7%-20.7%). The comparative analysis indicated a similar PJI rate between the Ta- augmented and non-Ta group across 3 studies, which was found to be similar (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.13-2.0, P = 0.35).

CONCLUSION

PJI poses a significant risk following both aseptic and septic revision rTKA, even when Ta-augmented implants were administrated. The rate of PJI after rTKA was similar for Ta- augmented implants and non-Ta implants. Further rigorous studies with a high level of evidence are essential to definitively determine the potential impact of Ta derivatives on infection rates following rTKA, particularly in septic revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Tibial Metaphyseal Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tibial cones in revision total knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

A Markov model was used for cost-effectiveness analysis. The average cone price was obtained from Orthopedic Network News. The average cone aseptic loosening rate was determined by literature review. Hospitalization costs and baseline re-revision rates were calculated using the PearlDiver Database.

RESULTS

The maximum cost-effective cone price varied from $3514 at age 40 to $648 at age 90, compared to the current average selling price of $4201. Cones became cost-effective with baseline aseptic loosening rates of 0.89% annually at age 40 to 4.38% annually at age 90, compared to the current average baseline loosening rate of 0.76% annually.

CONCLUSION

For the average patient, tibial cones are not cost-effective, but may become so at lower prices, in younger patients, or in patients at substantially increased risk of aseptic loosening.

Comparison of Different Strategies in Revision Arthroplasty of the Knee with Severe Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

In revision total knee arthroplasty large bone lesions can jeopardize correct implant orientation and fixation. Different strategies have been proposed to tackle this issue. The purpose of this review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the midterm clinical and survivorship results of porous cones and porous-coated sleeves compared to morselized and structural grafts.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature on the different strategies targeting moderate to large metaphyseal bone defects. The literature was evaluated for methodological quality. We analyzed results on survivorship using logistic regression correcting for follow-up time and number of knees. We compared these results using forest plots for early and midterm follow-up. Clinical outcome was evaluated by comparing standardized mean difference of patient-related outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 77 articles analyzing 4,391 knees were included. The logistic regression curve showed a nonsignificant odds ratio (OR) at 10 years of 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.699-1.192, P = .49) for failure comparing all porous implants with all grafting procedures. The available clinical reports show a bigger standardized mean difference increase for tantalum cones (OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.71-4.37) than for porous sleeves (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.88-2.57).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis shows that the size and quality of the literature on metaphyseal bone defects is progressively improving. Porous implants are effective in tackling metaphyseal bone defects showing good survivorship outcome at midterm follow-up. In younger patients with less constrained prosthetic implants, surgeons might still consider the use of grafts without risking worse outcomes.

Metaphyseal cones and sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty: Two sides of the same coin? Complications, clinical and radiological results-a systematic review of the literature

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is increasing of relevance in orthopaedic surgeon daily practice and this trend is likely to continue in the years ahead. The aim of this systematic review of English literature is to summarize and compare indications, complications, clinical and radiological results of metaphyseal cones and sleeves in management of bone loss in rTKA. Retrospective or prospective studies with at least 1 year of follow-up (FU) were included. The PRISMA 2009 flowchart and checklist were considered to edit the review. Clinical and radiological results, rates of intraoperative fractures, aseptic loosening, periprosthetic joint infection, septic failure, reoperations and re-revisions were extrapolated by the papers. Thirty-seven articles were included in the systematic review. Results of 927 cones (mean FU of 3.6 ± 1.4 years) and 1801 sleeves (mean FU of 4.5 ± 1.6 years) were analysed. The studies showed good clinical and functional outcomes. Cones and sleeves allowed a stable metaphyseal fixation. The aseptic survivorship of the implants was 97.3% in cones group and 97.8% in sleeves group. Metaphyseal cones and sleeves represent a viable option in management of type IIb and III AORI bone defects in aseptic and septic TKAr with overlapping survival rate. Further high-quality long-term studies would better clarify complications, clinical and radiological results of these promising techniques in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Porous metal cones: gold standard for massive bone loss in complex revision knee arthroplasty? A systematic review of current literature

INTRODUCTION

Revision knee arthroplasty is increasing, and in that case, bone loss management is still a challenging problem. In the last years, the body of literature and interest surrounding porous metal cones has grown, but few systematic evaluations of the existing evidence have been performed. The aim of our systematic review is to collect and critically analyze the available evidence about metal cones in revision knee arthroplasty especially focusing our attention on indications, results, complications, and infection rate of these promising orthopaedic devices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the available English literature, considering the outcomes and the complications of tantalum cones. The combinations of keyword were "porous metal cones", "knee revision", "bone loss", "knee arthroplasty", "periprosthetic joint infection", and "outcome".

RESULTS

From the starting 312 papers available, 20 manuscripts were finally included. Only one included study has a control group. The main indication for metal cones is type IIb and III defects according AORI classification. Most of the papers show good clinical and radiological outcomes with low rate of complications.

CONCLUSION

The examined studies provide encouraging clinical and radiological short-to-mid-term outcomes. Clinical studies have shown a low rate of aseptic loosening, intraoperative fractures, infection rate and a lower failure rate than the previous treatment methods. Higher quality papers are needed to draw definitive conclusions about porous metal cones.