Treatment of Severe Bone Defects During Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty with Structural Allografts and Porous Metal Cones: A Systematic Review

Nicholas A Beckmann; Sebastian Mueller; Matthias Gondan; Sebastian Jaeger; Tobias Reiner; Rudi G Bitsch

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.016

Treatment of Severe Bone Defects During Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty with Structural Allografts and Porous Metal Cones: A Systematic Review

Nicholas A Beckmann, Sebastian Mueller, Matthias Gondan, Sebastian Jaeger, Tobias Reiner, Rudi G Bitsch

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aseptic loosening and focal osteolysis are the most common reasons for knee arthroplasty failure. The best treatment remains unclear. We reviewed the literature on the treatment of revision knee arthroplasty using bony structural allografts (476 cases) and porous metal cones (223 cases) to determine if a difference in the revision failure rates was discernable. The failure rates were compared using a logistic regression model with adjustment for discrepancies in FU time and number of grafts used (femoral, tibial, or both). In this analysis, the porous implant shows a significantly decreased loosening rate in AORI 2 and 3 defects. The overall failure rate was also substantially lower in the porous metal group than the structural allograft group; little difference in the infection rates was noted.

Original language	English
Journal	Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume	30
Issue number	2
Pages (from-to)	249–253
Number of pages	5
ISSN	0883-5403
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.016
Publication status	Published - 1 Feb 2015

Keywords

Faculty of Social Sciences
allograft
porous metal
tantalum
knee revision arthroplasty
AORI
knee defects

Access to Document

10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.016Licence: Unspecified

Cite this

Treatment of Severe Bone Defects During Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty with Structural Allografts and Porous Metal Cones : A Systematic Review. / Beckmann, Nicholas A; Mueller, Sebastian; Gondan, Matthias et al.

In: Journal of Arthroplasty, Vol. 30, No. 2, 01.02.2015, p. 249–253.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

@article{698225dba0f0408086f40ed8a4779f7d,

title = "Treatment of Severe Bone Defects During Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty with Structural Allografts and Porous Metal Cones: A Systematic Review",

abstract = "Aseptic loosening and focal osteolysis are the most common reasons for knee arthroplasty failure. The best treatment remains unclear. We reviewed the literature on the treatment of revision knee arthroplasty using bony structural allografts (476 cases) and porous metal cones (223 cases) to determine if a difference in the revision failure rates was discernable. The failure rates were compared using a logistic regression model with adjustment for discrepancies in FU time and number of grafts used (femoral, tibial, or both). In this analysis, the porous implant shows a significantly decreased loosening rate in AORI 2 and 3 defects. The overall failure rate was also substantially lower in the porous metal group than the structural allograft group; little difference in the infection rates was noted.",

keywords = "Faculty of Social Sciences, allograft , porous metal, tantalum, knee revision arthroplasty, AORI, knee defects",

author = "Beckmann, {Nicholas A} and Sebastian Mueller and Matthias Gondan and Sebastian Jaeger and Tobias Reiner and Bitsch, {Rudi G}",

year = "2015",

month = feb,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.016",

language = "English",

volume = "30",

pages = "249–253",

journal = "Journal of Arthroplasty",

issn = "0883-5403",

publisher = "Churchill Livingstone",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Treatment of Severe Bone Defects During Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty with Structural Allografts and Porous Metal Cones

T2 - A Systematic Review

AU - Beckmann, Nicholas A

AU - Mueller, Sebastian

AU - Gondan, Matthias

AU - Jaeger, Sebastian

AU - Reiner, Tobias

AU - Bitsch, Rudi G

PY - 2015/2/1

Y1 - 2015/2/1

N2 - Aseptic loosening and focal osteolysis are the most common reasons for knee arthroplasty failure. The best treatment remains unclear. We reviewed the literature on the treatment of revision knee arthroplasty using bony structural allografts (476 cases) and porous metal cones (223 cases) to determine if a difference in the revision failure rates was discernable. The failure rates were compared using a logistic regression model with adjustment for discrepancies in FU time and number of grafts used (femoral, tibial, or both). In this analysis, the porous implant shows a significantly decreased loosening rate in AORI 2 and 3 defects. The overall failure rate was also substantially lower in the porous metal group than the structural allograft group; little difference in the infection rates was noted.

AB - Aseptic loosening and focal osteolysis are the most common reasons for knee arthroplasty failure. The best treatment remains unclear. We reviewed the literature on the treatment of revision knee arthroplasty using bony structural allografts (476 cases) and porous metal cones (223 cases) to determine if a difference in the revision failure rates was discernable. The failure rates were compared using a logistic regression model with adjustment for discrepancies in FU time and number of grafts used (femoral, tibial, or both). In this analysis, the porous implant shows a significantly decreased loosening rate in AORI 2 and 3 defects. The overall failure rate was also substantially lower in the porous metal group than the structural allograft group; little difference in the infection rates was noted.

KW - Faculty of Social Sciences

KW - allograft

KW - porous metal

KW - tantalum

KW - knee revision arthroplasty

KW - AORI

KW - knee defects

U2 - 10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.016

DO - 10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.016

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 25445853

SN - 0883-5403

VL - 30

SP - 249

EP - 253

JO - Journal of Arthroplasty

JF - Journal of Arthroplasty

IS - 2

ER -

Treatment of Severe Bone Defects During Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty with Structural Allografts and Porous Metal Cones: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this