Diaphyseal Impaction Grafting Combined with Metaphyseal Cones: Outcomes in 88 Revision Total Knee Arthroplasties.

IF 4.4 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume Pub Date : 2024-07-17 Epub Date: 2024-05-01 DOI:10.2106/JBJS.23.01085
Nicholas A Bedard, Evan M Dugdale, Cory C Couch, David G Lewallen, Rafael J Sierra, Daniel J Berry, Matthew P Abdel
{"title":"Diaphyseal Impaction Grafting Combined with Metaphyseal Cones: Outcomes in 88 Revision Total Knee Arthroplasties.","authors":"Nicholas A Bedard, Evan M Dugdale, Cory C Couch, David G Lewallen, Rafael J Sierra, Daniel J Berry, Matthew P Abdel","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.23.01085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Metaphyseal cones with cemented stems can be successfully utilized in most revision total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). However, if the diaphysis has been previously violated, fixation of the cemented stem, which is important for cone ingrowth and construct survival, can be compromised. The initial results of our novel technique combining diaphyseal impaction bone-grafting with a metaphyseal cone were promising but required additional study. The purpose of the present study was to assess results of this technique in a larger cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A metaphyseal cone combined with diaphyseal impaction grafting and a cemented stem was utilized in 88 revision TKAs at our institution, including 35 from our prior study. The mean age at the time of revision was 67 years, and 67% of patients were male. Patients had had a mean of 4 prior knee arthroplasty procedures. The 2 most common reasons for revision were aseptic loosening (78%) and 2-stage reimplantation for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (19%). The mean follow-up was 4 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At the time of the latest follow-up, no cone-impaction grafting constructs required re-revision for aseptic loosening. Five-year survivorship free from any revision of the cone-impaction grafting construct and free from any reoperation was 95% and 65%, respectively. A total of 25 knees (28%) underwent reoperation, with the 2 most common indications being PJI and periprosthetic fracture. All cones were osseointegrated, and all bone graft appeared stable or incorporated. One patient had radiographic evidence of tibial component loosening despite a well-fixed cone; however, this patient was asymptomatic and had not undergone revision at 9 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When presented with a sclerotic, polished diaphyseal canal with deficient cancellous bone and concomitant metaphyseal bone loss, our technique of combining diaphyseal impaction grafting with a metaphyseal cone proved extremely durable in this larger series of patients. No cone-impaction grafting constructs required re-revision for aseptic loosening.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":15273,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.23.01085","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Metaphyseal cones with cemented stems can be successfully utilized in most revision total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). However, if the diaphysis has been previously violated, fixation of the cemented stem, which is important for cone ingrowth and construct survival, can be compromised. The initial results of our novel technique combining diaphyseal impaction bone-grafting with a metaphyseal cone were promising but required additional study. The purpose of the present study was to assess results of this technique in a larger cohort.

Methods: A metaphyseal cone combined with diaphyseal impaction grafting and a cemented stem was utilized in 88 revision TKAs at our institution, including 35 from our prior study. The mean age at the time of revision was 67 years, and 67% of patients were male. Patients had had a mean of 4 prior knee arthroplasty procedures. The 2 most common reasons for revision were aseptic loosening (78%) and 2-stage reimplantation for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (19%). The mean follow-up was 4 years.

Results: At the time of the latest follow-up, no cone-impaction grafting constructs required re-revision for aseptic loosening. Five-year survivorship free from any revision of the cone-impaction grafting construct and free from any reoperation was 95% and 65%, respectively. A total of 25 knees (28%) underwent reoperation, with the 2 most common indications being PJI and periprosthetic fracture. All cones were osseointegrated, and all bone graft appeared stable or incorporated. One patient had radiographic evidence of tibial component loosening despite a well-fixed cone; however, this patient was asymptomatic and had not undergone revision at 9 years.

Conclusions: When presented with a sclerotic, polished diaphyseal canal with deficient cancellous bone and concomitant metaphyseal bone loss, our technique of combining diaphyseal impaction grafting with a metaphyseal cone proved extremely durable in this larger series of patients. No cone-impaction grafting constructs required re-revision for aseptic loosening.

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

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
骺端撞击移植结合骺锥:88 例翻修全膝关节置换术的效果。
背景:大多数翻修全膝关节置换术(TKA)都能成功使用带有骨水泥柄的骺锥。但是,如果骺端以前受到过破坏,那么骨水泥柄的固定就会受到影响,而骨水泥柄的固定对于锥体的生长和结构的存活非常重要。我们的新技术将干骺端撞击植骨与骺端锥体相结合,其初步结果很有希望,但还需要进一步研究。本研究的目的是在更大的群体中评估该技术的效果:方法:本院在88例翻修TKAs中使用了骺锥结合骺端植入植骨和骨水泥柄,其中35例来自我们之前的研究。翻修时的平均年龄为 67 岁,67% 的患者为男性。患者之前平均接受过4次膝关节置换手术。最常见的两种翻修原因是无菌性松动(78%)和因假体周围关节感染(PJI)而进行的两阶段再植入(19%)。平均随访时间为4年:结果:在最近一次随访中,没有锥体压入植骨结构因无菌性松动而需要再次手术。锥体压入植骨结构五年内无翻修和无再次手术的存活率分别为95%和65%。共有25个膝关节(28%)接受了再手术,其中最常见的两个适应症是PJI和假体周围骨折。所有锥体都已骨结合,所有植骨看起来都很稳定或已结合。尽管锥体固定良好,但有一名患者的X光片显示胫骨组件松动;不过,这名患者没有症状,9年后也没有进行翻修:结论:当出现硬化、抛光的骺软骨管、松质骨不足以及同时伴有骺端骨质流失时,我们将骺软骨压入移植与骺锥体相结合的技术在这一较大系列的患者中证明非常耐用。没有任何锥体植入物因无菌性松动而需要重新修补:证据级别:治疗四级。有关证据级别的完整描述,请参阅 "作者须知"。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.50%
发文量
660
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS) has been the most valued source of information for orthopaedic surgeons and researchers for over 125 years and is the gold standard in peer-reviewed scientific information in the field. A core journal and essential reading for general as well as specialist orthopaedic surgeons worldwide, The Journal publishes evidence-based research to enhance the quality of care for orthopaedic patients. Standards of excellence and high quality are maintained in everything we do, from the science of the content published to the customer service we provide. JBJS is an independent, non-profit journal.
期刊最新文献
Demographics, Indications, and Revision Rates for Radial Head Arthroplasty: Analysis of Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Patients' Preferences for Bone-Anchored Prostheses After Lower-Extremity Amputation: A 2-Center Discrete Choice Experiment in The Netherlands (PREFER-BAP-1). What's Important: Building the Practice Your Community Needs. An In-Depth Analysis of Public and Private Research Funding in Orthopaedic Surgery from 2015 to 2021. AOA Critical Issues Symposium: Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Orthopaedic Surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1