Metaphyseal bone loss is common with revision total knee replacement (RTKR). Using the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification, type 2-B and type 3 defects usually require large metal blocks, bulk structural allograft or highly porous metal cones. Tibial and femoral trabecular metal metaphyseal cones are a unique solution for large bone defects. These cones substitute for bone loss, improve metaphyseal fixation, help correct malalignment, restore the joint line and may permit use of a shorter stem. The technique for insertion involves sculpturing of the remaining bone with a high speed burr and rasp, followed by press-fit of the cone into the metaphysis. The fixation and osteoconductive properties of the porous cone outer surface allow ingrowth and encourage long-term biological fixation. The revision knee component is then cemented into the porous cone inner surface, which provides superior fixation compared with cementing into native but deficient metaphyseal bone. The advantages of the cone compared with allograft include: technical ease, biological fixation, no resorption, and possibly a lower risk of infection. The disadvantages include: difficult extraction and relatively short-term follow-up. Several studies using cones report promising short-term results for the reconstruction of large bone defects in RTKR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):118–21.

We report the results of revision total knee replacement (TKR) in 26 patients with major metaphyseal osteolytic defects using 29 trabecular metal cones in conjunction with a rotating hinged total knee prosthesis. The osteolytic defects were types II and III (A or B) according to the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification. The mean age of the patients was 72 years (62 to 84) and there were 15 men and 11 women. In this series patients had undergone a mean of 2.34 previous total knee arthroplasties. The main objective was to restore anatomy along with stability and function of the knee joint to allow immediate full weight-bearing and active knee movement. Outcomes were measured using Knee Society scores, Oxford knee scores, range of movement of the knee and serial radiographs. Patients were followed for a mean of 36 months (24 to 49). The mean Oxford knee clinical scores improved from 12.83 (10 to 15) to 35.20 (32 to 38) (p < 0.001) and mean American Knee Society scores improved from 33.24 (13 to 36) to 81.12 (78 to 86) (p < 0.001). No radiolucent lines suggestive of loosening were seen around the trabecular metal cones, and by one year all the radiographs showed good osteo-integration. There was no evidence of any collapse or implant migration. Our early results confirm the findings of others that trabecular metal cones offer a useful way of managing severe bone loss in revision TKR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1069–74

Aims

Obtaining solid implant fixation is crucial in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) to avoid aseptic loosening, a major reason for re-revision. This study aims to validate a novel grading system that quantifies implant fixation across three anatomical zones (epiphysis, metaphysis, diaphysis).

Aims

Tibial cones are often utilized in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with metaphyseal defects. Because there are few studies evaluating mid-term outcomes with a sufficient cohort, the purpose of this study was to evaluate tibial cone survival and complications in revision TKAs with tibial cones at minimum follow-up of five years.

Aims

Varus-valgus constrained (VVC) implants are often used during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to gain coronal plane stability. However, the increased mechanical torque applied to the bone-cement interface theoretically increases the risk of aseptic loosening. We assessed mid-term survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes of a fixed-bearing VVC device in revision TKAs.

Revision knee arthroplasty presents a number of challenges, not least of which is obtaining solid primary fixation of implants into host bone. Three anatomical zones exist within both femur and tibia which can be used to support revision implants. These consist of the joint surface or epiphysis, the metaphysis and the diaphysis. The methods by which fixation in each zone can be obtained are discussed. The authors suggest that solid fixation should be obtained in at least two of the three zones and emphasise the importance of pre-operative planning and implant selection.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:147–9.

The management of bone loss in revision replacement of the knee remains a challenge despite an array of options available to the surgeon. Bone loss may occur as a result of the original disease, the design of the prosthesis, the mechanism of failure or technical error at initial surgery. The aim of revision surgery is to relieve pain and improve function while addressing the mechanism of failure in order to reconstruct a stable platform with transfer of load to the host bone. Methods of reconstruction include the use of cement, modular metal augmentation of prostheses, custom-made, tumour-type or hinged implants and bone grafting.

The published results of the surgical techniques are summarised and a guide for the management of bone defects in revision surgery of the knee is presented.