Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2016; 29(08): 621-626
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1593370
Special Focus Section
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Tantalum Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

Eric G. Kim
1   Department of Orthopedics, Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopedics, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Nirav K. Patel
1   Department of Orthopedics, Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopedics, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Morad Chughtai
2   Department of Orthopaedics, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Randa D. K. Elmallah
3   Department of Orthopaedics, University of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi
,
Ronald E. Delanois
1   Department of Orthopedics, Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopedics, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Steven F. Harwin
4   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, New York
,
Michael A. Mont
2   Department of Orthopaedics, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

08 July 2016

02 August 2016

Publication Date:
20 September 2016 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The best strategy to address large bony defects in revision total knee arthroplasty has yet to be determined. The relatively recent development of porous tantalum cones and their use to address massive bone loss in knee arthroplasty has shown promising short- and intermediate-term results. The purpose of this review is to present the current literature on: (1) basic science of porous tantalum, (2) classification and treatment for bone loss, (3) clinical results, and (4) evolution of newer generation cones.

Keywords

revision - cones - bone defects - total knee arthroplasty
 

  • 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 (4) 780-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Harrysson OL, Robertsson O, Nayfeh JF. Higher cumulative revision rate of knee arthroplasties in younger patients with osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (421) 162-168
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Khan M, Osman K, Green G, Haddad FS. The epidemiology of failure in total knee arthroplasty: avoiding your next revision. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (1, suppl A): 105-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Huten D. Femorotibial bone loss during revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013; 99 (1, Suppl): S22-S33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Backstein D, Safir O, Gross A. Management of bone loss: structural grafts in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446 (446) 104-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Benjamin J, Engh G, Parsley B, Donaldson T, Coon T. Morselized bone grafting of defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (392) 62-67
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bush JL, Wilson JB, Vail TP. Management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 452 (452) 186-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Meneghini RM, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90 (1) 78-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ritter MA, Harty LD. Medial screws and cement: a possible mechanical augmentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (5) 587-589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Clatworthy MG, Ballance J, Brick GW, Chandler HP, Gross AE. The use of structural allograft for uncontained defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. A minimum five-year review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83-A (3) 404-411
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Höll S, Schlomberg A, Gosheger G , et al. Distal femur and proximal tibia replacement with megaprosthesis in revision knee arthroplasty: a limb-saving procedure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012; 20 (12) 2513-2518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bauman RD, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Limitations of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (3) 818-824
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Howard JL, Kudera J, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Early results of the use of tantalum femoral cones for revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (5) 478-484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Long WJ, Scuderi GR. Porous tantalum cones for large metaphyseal tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24 (7) 1086-1092
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rao BM, Kamal TT, Vafaye J, Moss M. Tantalum cones for major osteolysis in revision knee replacement. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B: 1069-1074
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Schmitz HC, Klauser W, Citak M, Al-Khateeb H, Gehrke T, Kendoff D. Three-year follow up utilizing tantal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (9) 1556-1560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Villanueva-Martínez M, De la Torre-Escudero B, Rojo-Manaute JM, Ríos-Luna A, Chana-Rodriguez F. Tantalum cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. A promising short-term result with 29 cones in 21 patients. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (6) 988-993
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Black J. Biological performance of tantalum. Clin Mater 1994; 16 (3) 167-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Zardiackas LD, Parsell DE, Dillon LD, Mitchell DW, Nunnery LA, Poggie R. Structure, metallurgy, and mechanical properties of a porous tantalum foam. J Biomed Mater Res 2001; 58 (2) 180-187
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Levine BR, Sporer S, Poggie RA, Della Valle CJ, Jacobs JJ. Experimental and clinical performance of porous tantalum in orthopedic surgery. Biomaterials 2006; 27 (27) 4671-4681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Findlay DM, Welldon K, Atkins GJ, Howie DW, Zannettino AC, Bobyn D. The proliferation and phenotypic expression of human osteoblasts on tantalum metal. Biomaterials 2004; 25 (12) 2215-2227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Welldon KJ, Atkins GJ, Howie DW, Findlay DM. Primary human osteoblasts grow into porous tantalum and maintain an osteoblastic phenotype. J Biomed Mater Res A 2008; 84 (3) 691-701
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hanzlik JA, Day JS ; Acknowledged Contributors: Ingrowth Retrieval Study Group. Bone ingrowth in well-fixed retrieved porous tantalum implants. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (6) 922-927
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Schildhauer TA, Peter E, Muhr G, Köller M. Activation of human leukocytes on tantalum trabecular metal in comparison to commonly used orthopedic metal implant materials. J Biomed Mater Res A 2009; 88 (2) 332-341
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect 1999; 48: 167-175
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Engh G. Bone defect classification. In: Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1997: 63-120
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Meneghini RM, Mont MA, Backstein DB, Bourne RB, Dennis DA, Scuderi GR. Development of a modern knee society radiographic evaluation system and methodology for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (12) 2311-2314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Dennis DA. A stepwise approach to revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (4) (Suppl. 01) 32-38
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Ritter MA. Screw and cement fixation of large defects in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1986; 1 (2) 125-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Mabry TM, Hanssen AD. The role of stems and augments for bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (4) (Suppl. 01) 56-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Lonner JH, Lotke PA, Kim J, Nelson C. Impaction grafting and wire mesh for uncontained defects in revision knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (404) 145-151
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lotke PA, Carolan GF, Puri N. Impaction grafting for bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446 (466) 99-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Dorr LD, Ranawat CS, Sculco TA, McKaskill B, Orisek BS. Bone graft for tibial defects in total knee arthroplasty. 1986. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446 (446) 4-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Vasso M, Beaufils P, Cerciello S, Schiavone Panni A. Bone loss following knee arthroplasty: potential treatment options. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2014; 134 (4) 543-553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Ponzio DY, Austin MS. Metaphyseal bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015; 8 (4) 361-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Beckmann NA, Mueller S, Gondan M, Jaeger S, Reiner T, Bitsch RG. Treatment of severe bone defects during revision total knee arthroplasty with structural allografts and porous metal cones-a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (2) 249-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 De Martino I, De Santis V, Sculco PK, D'Apolito R, Assini JB, Gasparini G. Tantalum cones provide durable mid-term fixation in revision TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (10) 3176-3182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Jensen CL, Winther N, Schrøder HM, Petersen MM. Outcome of revision total knee arthroplasty with the use of trabecular metal cone for reconstruction of severe bone loss at the proximal tibia. Knee 2014; 21 (6) 1233-1237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Kamath AF, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty: a five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (3) 216-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Brown NM, Bell JA, Jung EK, Sporer SM, Paprosky WG, Levine BR. The use of trabecular metal cones in complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (9, Suppl): 90-93
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Derome P, Sternheim A, Backstein D, Malo M. Treatment of large bone defects with trabecular metal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty: short term clinical and radiographic outcomes. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 122-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Panni AS, Vasso M, Cerciello S. Modular augmentation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21: 2837-2843
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Lachiewicz PF, Bolognesi MP, Henderson RA, Soileau ES, Vail TP. Can tantalum cones provide fixation in complex revision knee arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470: 199-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Radnay CS, Scuderi GR. Management of bone loss: augments, cones, offset stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446: 83-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar