Bone deficiency hinders implant alignment and stabilisation of the bone-implant interface in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Treatments for bone defects include bone cement, bone cement with screw reinforcement, metal augments, impaction bone grafts, structural allografts, and tantalum, depending on the location and size of the defects. Small defects are usually treated with cement, cement plus screws, or impaction allograft bone. Large defects are repaired with structural allografts or metal augments. Recent developments involve the use of highly porous osteo-conductive tantalum. We reviewed the pros and cons of each method for bone defect management in revision TKA.
FehringTKChristieMJLaverniaCMasonJBMcAuleyJPMacDonaldSJ. Revision total knee arthroplasty: Planning, management, and controversies. Instr Course Lect2008;57:341–63.
2.
MunjalSPhillipsMJKrackowKA. Revision total knee arthroplasty: Planning, controversies, and management-infection. Instr Course Lect2001;50:367–77.
3.
ClarkeHDScuderiGR. Revision total knee arthroplasty: Planning, management, controversies, and surgical approaches. Instr Course Lect2001;50:359–65.
4.
CompletoASimoesJAFonsecaF. Revision total knee arthroplasty: The influence of femoral stems in load sharing and stability. Knee2009;16:275–9.
5.
TanGMLynneGSarbjitS. Osteolysis and wear debris after total knee arthroplasty presenting with extra-articular metallosis in the calf. J Arthroplasty2008;23:775–80.
6.
SydneySEPickeringSABellCGCrawfordR. Reducing metal debris generation during total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics2007;30:999–1000.
7.
GottersonPRNusemIPearcyMJCrawfordRW. Metal debris from bony resection in knee arthroplasty-is it an issue?Acta Orthop2005;76:475–80.
8.
MountneyJWilsonDRPaiceMMasriBAGreidanusNV. The effect of an augmentation patella prosthesis versus patelloplasty on revision patellar kinematics and quadriceps tendon force: An ex vivo study. J Arthroplasty2008;23:1219–31.
9.
CompletoASimoesJAFonsecaFOliveiraM. The influence of different tibial stem designs in load sharing and stability at the cement-bone interface in revision TKA. Knee2008;15:227–32.
10.
SaragagliaDEstourGNemerCCollePE. Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty: Strategy and results. Int Orthop2009;33:969–74.
11.
ParviziJMarrsJMorreyBF. Total knee arthroplasty for neuropathic (Charcot) joints. Clin Orthop Relat Res2003;416:145–50.
12.
RandJA. Treatment of the patella at reimplantation for septic total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2003;416:105–9.
13.
van LoonCJde Waal MalefjtMCBumaPStolkTVerdonschotNTrompAM. Autologous morsellised bone grafting restores uncontained femoral bone defects in knee arthroplasty. An in vivo study in horses. J Bone Joint Surg Br2000;82:436–44.
14.
van LoonCJde Waal MalefijtMCVerdonschotNBumaPvan derAaAJHuiskesR. Morsellized bone grafting compensates for femoral bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. An experimental study. Biomaterials1999;20:85–9.
15.
StuchinSA. Allografting in total knee replacement arthroplasty. Semin Arthroplasty1993;4:117–22.
16.
BrooksPJWalkerPSScottRD. Tibial component fixation in deficienttibial bone stock. Clin Orthop Relat Res1984;184:302–8.
17.
TomsADBarkerRLMcClellandDChuaLSpencer-JonesRKuiperJH. Repair of defects and containment in revision total knee replacement: A comparative biomechanical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br2009;91:271–7.
18.
LotkePAWongRYEckerML. The use of methylmethacrylate in primary total knee replacements with large tibial defects. Clin Orthop Relate Res1991;270:288–94.
19.
DorrLDRanawatCSSculcoTAMcKaskillBOrisekBS. Bone graft for tibial defects in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res1986;205:153–65.
20.
SakanakaTWatanabeSShirakataHMashimaNImaiHYamamotoH. The management of bone defect in total knee arthroplasty for the patients with rheumatoid arthiritis. J Chugoku-Shikoku Orthop Asso2003;15:171–4.
21.
SeebeckJGoldhahnJMorlockMMSchneiderE. Mechanical behavior of screws in normal and osteoporotic bone. Osteoporos Int2005;16(Suppl 2):S107–11.
22.
PalsSWilkinsRM. Giant cell tumor of bone treated by curettage, cementation, and bone grafting. Orthopedics1992;15:703–8.
23.
O'DonnellRJSpringfieldDSMotwaniHKReadyJEGebhardtMCMankinHJ. Recurrence of giant-cell tumors of the long bones after curettage and packing with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am1994;76:1827–33.
24.
PerssonBMWoutersHW. Curettage and acrylic cementation in surgery of giant cell tumors of bone. Clin Orthop Relat Res1976;120:125–33.
25.
PerssonBMEkelundLLovdahlRGunterbergB. Favourable results of acrylic cementation for giant cell tumors. Acta Orthop Scand1984;55:209–14.
26.
GrossAE. Revision total knee arthroplasty of bone grafts versus implant supplementation. Orthopedics1997;20:843–4.
27.
ScottRD. Bone loss: Prosthetic and augmentation method. Orthopedics1995;18:923–6.
28.
EnghGAAmmeenDJ. Classification and preoperative radiographic evaluation: Knee. Orthop Clin North Am1998;29:205–17.
29.
RitterMA. Screw and cement fixation of large defects in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty1986;1:125–9.
30.
RitterMAHartyLD. Medial screws and cement: A possible mechanical augmentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2004;19:587–9.
31.
RitterMAHartyLDDavisKEMedingJBBerendM. Simultaneous bilateral, staged bilateral, and unilateral total knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am2003;85:1532–7.
32.
RitterMAHartyLD. Debate: Simultaneous bilateral knee replacements: The outcomes justify its use. Clin Orthop Relat Res2004;428:84–6.
33.
ChungHKChoiCHKimJHEomKY. Screw and cement fixation of tibial bone defects in total knee replacement. J Korean Knee Soc1999;11:149–54.
34.
RadnayCSScuderiGR. Management of bone loss: Augments, cones, offset stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res2006;446:83–92.
LombardiAVBerendKRAdamsJB. Management of bone loss in revision TKA: It's a changing world. Orthopedics2010;33:662.
39.
RandJA. Modular augments in revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am1998;29:347–53.
40.
BrandMGDaleyRJEwaldFCScottRD. Tibial tray augmentation with modular metal wedges for tibial bone stock deficiency. Clin Orthop Relat Res1989;248:71–9.
41.
TakagiHIwataHIshiguroNKojimaTOguchiT. Tibial wedge augmentation in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Rheumatol2001;13:289–92.
42.
WerleJRGoodmanSBImrieSN. Revision total knee arthroplasty using large distal femoral augments for severe metaphyseal bone deficiency: A preliminary study. Orthopedics2002;25:325–7.
43.
PatelJVMasonisJLGuerinJBourneRBRorabeckCH. The fate of augments to treat type-2 bone defects in revision knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br2004;86:195–9.
44.
GoftonWTTsigarasHButlerRAPattersonJJBarrackRLRorabeckCH. Revision total knee arthroplasty: Fixation with modular stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res2002;404:158–68.
45.
PoultsidesLASculcoTP. Bone loss management in revision total knee replacement. Tech Orthop2011;26:84.
46.
Suarez-SuarezMAMurciaAMaestroA. Filling of segmental bone defects in revision knee arthroplasty using morsellized bone grafts contained within a metal mesh. Acta Orthop Belg2002;68:163–7.
47.
TomsADBarkerRLJonesRSKuiperJH. Impaction bone-grafting in revision joint replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am2004;86:2050–60.
48.
EldridgeJHubbleMNelsonKSmithELearmonthI. The effect of bone chip size on initial stability following femoral impaction grafting. J Bone Joint Surg Br1997;79(Suppl 3):S364.
49.
BolderSBSchreursBWVerdonschotNvan UnenJMGardeniersJWSlooffTJ. Particle size of bone graft and method of impaction affect initial stability of cemented cups: Human cadaveric and synthetic pelvic specimen studies. Acta Orthop Scand2003;74:652–7.
50.
TagilMAspenbergP. Impaction of cancellous bone grafts impairs osteoconduction in titanium chambers. Clin Orthop Relat Res1998;352:231–8.
51.
BradleyGW. Revision total knee arthroplasty by impaction bone grafting. Clin Orthop Relat Res2000;371:113–8.
52.
VerdonschotNSchreursBWVan UnenJMSlooffTJHuiskesR. Cup stability after acetabulum reconstruction with morsellized grafts is less surgical dependent when larger grafts are used. Trans Orthop Res Soc1999;24:867.
53.
DunlopDGBrewsterNTMadabhushiSPUsmaniASPankajPHowieCR. Techniques to improve the shear strength of impacted bone graft: The effect of particle size and washing of the graft. J Bone Joint Surg Am2003;85:639–46.
54.
HostnerJHultmarkPKarrholmJMalchauHTveitM. Impaction technique and graft treatment in revisions of the femoral component: Laboratory studies and clinical validation. J Arthroplasty2001;16:76–82.
55.
UllmarkG. Bigger size and defatting of bone chips will increase cup stability. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2000;120:445–7.
56.
KuiperJSolimanACheahKRichardsonJ. Stability of impaction-grafted hip and knee prostheses: Surgical technique, implant design and graft compaction. Impaction bone grafting in revision arthroplasty New York: Marcel Dekker; 2004:75–94.
57.
TomsADBarkerRLJonesRSKuiperJH. Impaction bone-grafting in revision joint replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am2004;86:2050–60.
58.
SchreursBWHuiskesRSlooffTJ. The initial stability of cemented and non-cemented femoral stems fixated with a bone grafting technique. Clin Mater1994;16:105–10.
59.
TomsADMcClellandDChuaLde Waal MalefijtMVerdonschotNJonesSpencer R. Mechanical testing of impaction bone grafting in the tibia: Initial stability and design of the stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br2005;87:656–63.
60.
LinderL. Cancellous impaction grafting in the human femur: Histological and radiographic observations in 6 autopsy femurs and 8 biopsies. Acta Orthop Scand2000;71:543–52.
61.
TsiridisENarvaniAAHaddadFSTimperleyJAGieGA. Impaction femoral allografting and cemented revision for periprosthetic femoral fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br2004;86:1124–32.
62.
TangTDaiKZhuNChenY. A histomorphometric and molecular study on stress adaptability of freeze-dried bone allograft. Chin Med J (Engl)2001;114:1189–92.
63.
YanCHChiuKYNgTPNgFY. Revision total hip arthroplasty with femoral impaction bone grafting. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)2010;18:303–8.
64.
RoffmanMSilbermannMMendesDG. Viability and osteogenicity of bone graft coated with methylmethacrylate cement. Acta Orthop Scand1982;53:513–9.
65.
FreiHO'ConnellJMasriBADuncanCPOxlandTR. Biological and mechanical changes of the bone graft-cement interface after impaction allografting. J Orthop Res2005;23:1271–9.
66.
LingRSTimperleyAJLinderL. Histology of cancellous impaction grafting in the femur. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Br1993;75:693–6.
67.
NelissenRGBauerTWWeidenhielmLRLeGolvanDPMikhailWE. Revision hip arthroplasty with the use of cement and impaction grafting. Histological analysis of four cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am1995;77:412–22.
68.
van der DonkSBumaPSlooffTJGardeniersJWSchreursBW. Incorporation of morselized bone grafts: A study of 24 acetabular biopsy specimens. Clin Orthop Relat Res2002;396:131–41.
69.
JudasFFigueiredoMCabritaAProenaA, editors. Incorporation of impacted morselized bone allografts in rabbits. Elsevier; 2005.
70.
TomfordWWMankinHJ. Bone banking: Update on methods and materials. Orthop Clin North Am1999;30:565–70.
71.
BenjaminJEnghGParsleyBDonaldsonTCoonT. Morselized bone grafting of defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2001;392:62–7.
72.
LotkePACarolanGFPuriN. Impaction grafting for bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2006;446:99–103.
73.
UllmarkGHoveliusL. Impacted morsellized allograft and cement for revision total knee arthroplasty: A preliminary report of 3 cases. Acta Orthop Scand1996;67:10–2.
74.
WhitesideLABicalhoPS. Radiologic and histologic analysis of morselized allograft in revision total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res1998;357:149–56.
75.
BourneRBFinlayJB. The influence of tibial component intramedullary stems and implant-cortex contact on the strain distribution of the proximal tibia following total knee arthroplasty. An in vitro study. Clin Orthop Relat Res1986;208:95–9.
76.
van LoonCJBumaPde Waal MalefijtMCvan KampenAVethRP. Morselized bone allografting in revision total knee replacement-a case report with a 4-year histological follow-up. Acta Orthop Scand2000;71:98–101.
77.
DennisDALittleLR. The structural allograft composite in revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics2005;28:1005–7.
78.
DennisDA. Structural allografting in revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics1994;17:849–51.
79.
EnghGAParksNL. The management of bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect1997;46:227–36.
80.
EnghGAAmmeenDJ. Use of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty in knees with severe tibial bone loss. J Bone Joint Surg Am2007;89:2640–7.
81.
TsahakisPJBeaverWBBrickGW. Technique and results of allograft reconstruction in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res1994;303:86–94.
82.
MowCSWiedelJD. Structural allografting in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty1996;11:235–41.
83.
HoeffelDPRubashHE. Revision total knee arthroplasty: Current rationale and techniques for femoral component revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res2000;380:116–32.
84.
McAllisterDRJoyceMJMannBJVangsnessCTJr. Allograft update: The current status of tissue regulation, procurement, processing, and sterilization. Am J Sports Med2007;35:2148–58.
85.
TiganiDSabbioniGRaimondiA. Early aseptic loosening of a porous tantalum knee prosthesis. Chir Organi Mov2009;93:187–91.
86.
MaccauroGIommettiPRMuratoriFRaffaelliLManiconePFFabbricianiC. An overview about biomedical applications of micron and nano size tantalum. Recent Pat Biotechnol2009;3:157–65.
87.
BlackJ. Biologic performance of tantalum. Clin Mater1994;16:167–73.
88.
MeneghiniRMLewallenDGHanssenAD. Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am2009;91(Suppl 2Pt 1):131–8.
89.
LongWJScuderiGR. Porous tantalum cones for large metaphyseal tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: A minimum 2-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty2009;24:1086–92.
90.
HenricsonALinderLNilssonKG. A trabecular metal tibial component in total knee replacement in patients younger than 60 years: A two-year radiostereophotogrammetric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br2008;90:1585–93.
91.
RitterMABerendMEMedingJBKeatingEMFarisPMCritesBM. Long-term follow-up of anatomic graduated components posterior cruciate-retaining total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res2001;388:51–7.
92.
PagnanoMWLevyBABerryDJ. Cemented all polyethylene tibial components in patients age 75 years and older. Clin Orthop Relat Res1999;367:73–80.
93.
StockleyIMcAuleyJPGrossAE. Allograft reconstruction in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br1992;74:393–7.
