Clinical Survivorship of Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Hinged Knees and Tantalum Cones at Minimum 10-Year Follow-Up.

Author(s) Abdelaziz, H.; Jaramillo, R.; Gehrke, T.; Ohlmeier, M.; Citak, M.
Journal J Arthroplasty
Date Published 2019 Jul 02

BACKGROUND: The reconstruction of severe bone loss utilizing porous tantalum cones in patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been established in the last years. However, reports on a long-term follow-up to assess the durability of such implants when combined with hinged knee designs are lacking. The current study aimed to evaluate the results of a previous study cohort at a minimum follow-up of 10 years.

METHODS: A retrospective review was performed. The initial study cohort comprised of 38 patients who underwent aseptic revision TKA between 2007 and 2009 at a single institution. After exclusion of the deceased patients and patients who were lost to follow-up, 25 patients with hinged knees and 32 cones implanted were included with a minimum follow-up of 10 years (mean = 126.5 months, range 120-142, standard deviation [SD] = 5.92). Survivorship was determined, and re-revisions were observed. Functional Knee Society Score was assessed.

RESULTS: After a minimum of 10 years, 24 of 32 cones (75%) had survived without any exchange in 18 patients. Reasons for cone revision included aseptic loosening (5/32 cones; 15.6%) and periprosthetic joint infection (3/32 cones; 9.4%). In 4 of the five revisions due to aseptic loosening, pure hinged knees had been implanted. The mean functional Knee Society Score of the survivors was 69.6 points (range 10-100, SD = 30.85), and the average flexion ability of the knee was 92° (range 30°-120°, SD = 22.09).

CONCLUSION: Porous tantalum cones in revision TKA exhibited no favorable but reasonable long-term durability. Rotating-hinge designs should be used whenever possible to reduce the risk of aseptic loosening. Further comparative long-term analyses with other techniques or implants could inform us about the best treatment method.

DOI 10.1016/j.arth.2019.06.057
ISSN 1532-8406
Citation J Arthroplasty. 2019.