Use of Metaphyseal Sleeves in Revision Knee Arthroplasty

Full Text


Purpose. To study the short-term results of revision knee arthroplasty performed using metaphyseal sleeves. Patients and methods. During the period from 2013 to 2015 the total number of 40 patients was operated on. Type I femoral defects (by AORI classification) were diagnosed in 11 (27.5%), type II - in 26 (65.0%), type III - in 3 (7.5%) cases. Type I tibial defects were diagnosed in 2 (5.0%), type IIa - in 24 (65.0%), type IIb - in 11 (27.0%) and type III - in 3 (7.54%) cases. Metaphyseal femoral sleeves were used in 8 and metaphyseal tibial sleeve - in 40 patients. Results. Follow up period made up from 12 to 43 (mean 32.8) months. Excellent and good results by KSS scale were achieved in 30 (75.0%) of patients, by functional KSS scale - in 24 (60.0%) patients. Mean point by Knee Society Total Knee Arthroplasty Roentgenographic Evaluation scale in patients with femoral and tibial metaphyseal sleeves made up 2.35 versus 0.375 that confirmed the absence of progressive bone resorption. No one case of aseptic instability of the revision implant was observed. Repeated surgical intervention due to reinfection and knee joint contracture with pain syndrome was performed in 2 (5.0%) patients. Conclusion. The obtained data enable to recommend the use of metaphyseal sleeves for revision knee arthroplasty in patients with tibial and femoral defects of types II and III by AORI classification.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

M. V Girkalo

Research Institute of Traumatology, Orthopedics and Neurosurgery of the Saratov State Medical University n.a. V.I. Razumovsky

cand. med. sci., senior research worker, department of innovation projects in traumatology and ortho- paedics, NIITON SGMU named after V.I. Razumovskiy Saratov, Russia

I. A Norkin

Research Institute of Traumatology, Orthopedics and Neurosurgery of the Saratov State Medical University n.a. V.I. Razumovsky

Saratov, Russia


  1. Kurtz S., Ong K., Lau E. et al. 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): 780-5.
  2. Норкин И.А., Шпиняк С.П., Гиркало М.В., Барабаш А.П. Исходы хирургического лечения инфекционных осложнений после тотального эндопротезирования крупных суставов. Вестник травматологии и ортопедии им. Н.Н. Приорова. 2014; 3: 67-71.
  3. Куляба Т.А., Корнилов Н.Н., Селин А.В. и др. Способы компенсации костных дефектов при ревизионном эндопротезировании коленного сустава. Травматология и ортопедия России. 2011; (3): 5-12.
  4. Bauman R.D., Lewallen D.G., Hanssen A.D. Limitations of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2009; 467 (3): 818-24. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0679-4.
  5. Lotke P.A., Carolan G.F., Puri N. Impaction grafting for bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2006; (446): 99-103. doi: 10.1097/01. blo.0000214414.06464.0.
  6. Patel J.V., Masonis J.L., Guerin J. et al. The fate of augments to treat type-2 bone defects in revision knee arthroplasty. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 2004; 86 (2): 195-9.
  7. Бовкис Г.Ю., Куляба Т.А., Корнилов Н.Н. Компенсация дефектов метаэпифизов бедренной и большеберцовой костей при ревизионном эндопротезировании коленного сустава - способы и результаты их применения (обзор литературы). Травматология и ортопедия России. 2016; (2): 101-13. doi: 10.21823/2311-2905-2016- 0-2-101-113.
  8. Jones R.E., Barrack R.L., Skedros J. Modular, mobile- bearing hinge total knee arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2001; (392): 306-14.
  9. Alexander G.E., Bernasek T.L., Crank R.L., Haidukewych G.J. Cementless metaphyseal sleeves used for large tibial defectsinrevisiontotalkneearthroplasty. J. Arthroplasty. 2013; 28 (4): 604-7. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.08.006.
  10. Huang R., Barrazueta G., Ong A. et al. Revision total knee arthroplasty using metaphyseal sleeves at short- term follow-up. Orthopedics. 2014; 37 (9): e804-e809. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20140825-57.
  11. Engh G.A., Ammeen D.J. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr. Course Lect. 1999; 48: 167-75.
  12. Гиркало М.В., Гаврилов М.А., Норкин И.А. Способ замещения костных дефектов мыщелков большеберцовой или бедренной костей при тотальном эндопротезировании коленного сустава. Патент RUS 2465855 от 05.10.2011.
  13. Scuderi G.R., Bourne R.B., Noble P.C. et al. The new Knee Society Knee Scoring system. Clin. Othop. Relat. Res. 2012; (470): 3-19. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2135-0.
  14. Ewald F.C. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1989; (248): 9-12.
  15. Лакин Г.Ф. Биометрия: Учебное пособие для биол. спец. вузов. М.: Высшая школа; 1990.
  16. Загородний Н.В., Нуждин В.И., Бухтин К.М., Каграманов С.В. Результаты применения костной пластики аллотрансплантатами при ревизионном эндопротезировании тазобедренного сустава. Вестник травматологии и ортопедии им. Н.Н. Приорова. 2014; 2: 33-40.
  17. Morgan-Jones R., Oussedik S.I., Graichen H., Haddad F.S. Zonal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2015; 97 (2): 147-9. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.34144.
  18. Long W.J., Scuderi G.R. Porous tantalum cones for large metaphyseal tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: a minimum 2-year follow-up. J. Arthroplasty. 2009; 24 (7): 1086-92. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.08.011.
  19. Meneghini R.M., Lewallen D.G., Hanssen A.D. 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. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.01495.
  20. Howard J.L., Kudera J., Lewallen D.G., Hanssen A.D. Early results of the use of tantalum femoral cones for revision total knee arthroplasty. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2011; 93 (5): 478-84. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.01322.
  21. Lachiewicz P.F., Bolognesi M.P., Henderson R.A. et al. Can tantalum cones provide fixation in complex revision knee arthroplasty? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2012; 470 (1): 199-204. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-1888-9.



Abstract: 151


Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2017 Eco-Vector

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies