The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2008;90:78-84.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.01495
© 2008 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Meneghini, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Hanssen, A. D.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Meneghini, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Hanssen, A. D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Adult Knee
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Use of Porous Tantalum Metaphyseal Cones for Severe Tibial Bone Loss During Revision Total Knee Replacement

R. Michael Meneghini, MD1, David G. Lewallen, MD2 and Arlen D. Hanssen, MD2

1 Joint Replacement Surgeons of Indiana Research Foundation, St. Vincent Center for Joint Replacement, 8402 Harcourt Road, Suite 128, Indianapolis, IN 46260
2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street S.W., Rochester, MN 55905
Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Disclosure: The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. One or more of the authors, or a member of his or her immediate family, received, in any one year, payments or other benefits in excess of $10,000 or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity (Zimmer and Stryker). No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.


Background: The best treatment method for large tibial bone defects during revision knee replacement has not been established. The purpose of this study was to determine the initial results obtained with a unique reconstructive implant, the porous tantalum metaphyseal cone, designed as an alternative treatment for severe tibial bone loss following total knee arthroplasty.

Methods: Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones were implanted during fifteen revision total knee replacements in eight women and seven men who had an average age of 68.1 years at the time of the procedure. The patients had had an average of 3.5 prior total knee replacements. According to the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute bone defect classification, eight knees had a Type-3 defect and seven knees had a Type-2B bone defect. All patients were followed clinically and radiographically.

Results: The patients were followed for an average of thirty-four months (range, twenty-four to forty-seven months). Overall, the average Knee Society clinical scores improved from 52 points preoperatively to 85 points at the time of the final follow-up. At the final follow-up evaluation, all fifteen porous metaphyseal cones showed evidence of osseointegration with reactive osseous trabeculation at points of contact with the tibia. There was no evidence of loosening or migration of any of these tibial reconstructions at the time of final follow-up.

Conclusions: At the time of short-term follow-up, the porous tantalum metaphyseal tibial cones effectively provided structural support for the tibial implants in this series. The potential for long-term biologic fixation may provide durability for these tibial reconstructions. Long-term follow-up and comparison with alternative reconstructive techniques will be required to evaluate the true effectiveness of this treatment approach.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?