Aseptic Loosening of Porous Metaphyseal Sleeves and Tantalum Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

• Published in: The Journal of knee surgery
• Main Authors: Roach, Ryan P, Clair, Andrew J, Behery, Omar A, Thakkar, Savyasachi C, Iorio, Richard, Deshmukh, Ajit J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Germany 01.08.2021
• ISSN: 1938-2480
• DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1701434

Bone loss often complicates revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Management of metaphyseal defects varies, with no clearly superior technique. Two commonly utilized options for metaphyseal defect management include porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves and tantalum cones. A systematic review was conducted according to the international Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We combined search terms "Total knee arthroplasty" AND/OR "Sleeve," "Cone" as either keywords or medical subject heading (MeSH) terms in multiple databases according to PRISMA recommendations. All retrieved articles were reviewed and assessed using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 27 studies (12 sleeves and 15 cones) of revision TKAs were included. In the 12 studies on sleeve implantation in revision TKAs, 1,617 sleeves were implanted in 1,133 revision TKAs in 1,025 patients. The overall rate of reoperation was 110/1,133 (9.7%) and the total rate of aseptic loosening per sleeve was 13/1,617 (0.8%). In the 15 studies on tantalum cone implantation in revision TKAs, 701 cones were implanted into 620 revision TKAs in 612 patients. The overall rate of reoperation was 116/620 (18.7%), and the overall rate of aseptic loosening per cone was 12/701 (1.7%). Rates of aseptic loosening of the two implants were found to be similar, while the rate of reoperation was nearly double in revision TKAs utilizing tantalum cones. Variability in the selected studies and the likely multifactorial nature of failure do not allow for any definitive conclusions to be made. This review elucidates the necessity for additional literature examining revision TKA implants.