Femoral Sleeve Research Articles

Modular Augmentation in Varus-Valgus–Constrained Knee Arthroplasty—Do We Need Sleeves to Avoid Femoral Loosening After Excessive Distal Augmentation?

BackgroundIn revision total knee arthroplasty, zonal fixation methods with a combination of augments, press-fit stems, and sleeves are popular. We hypothesized that high distal femoral augmentation with diaphyseal press-fit stems leads to an increased rate of early aseptic loosening and that femoral metaphyseal sleeves improve implant survival. Therefore, we retrospectively investigated implant survival in relation to augment heights and sleeves. MethodsA total of 136 patients with mean clinical follow-up of 50 months (range, 28-85) who underwent modular total knee arthroplasty and revision total knee arthroplasty with semiconstrained implants between January 2012 and July 2018 were retrospectively evaluated. Implant survival with 4, 8, and 12 mm distal femoral augments was compared to no distal augmentation. Subsequently, a subgroup analysis was performed for femoral sleeve implantation. ResultsWe observed an implant survival rate of 97.0%, 87.5%, and 69.2% for 4, 8, and 12 mm distal femoral augmentation, respectively (P = .73; P = .19; P = .008). The implant survival rate with femoral sleeves was 95.8% for the 8 mm augments and 85.7% for the 12 mm augments (P = .42; P = .96). Without femoral sleeves, the implant survival rate was 78.3% with the 8 mm augments and 50.0% with the 12 mm augments (P = .02; P < .001). ConclusionHigher rates of aseptic femoral loosening were identified for distal femoral augmentation of 8 mm or more without metaphyseal sleeve fixation in semiconstrained implants. Thus, in cases with femoral metaphyseal bone damage requiring high distal femoral augmentation, metaphyseal sleeves should be used to avoid early aseptic femoral loosening.

Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty With a Rotating-Hinge Prosthesis Mated to a Well-Fixed Femoral Sleeve.

Some knee systems have the unique capability to mate a new hinged femoral component to a well-fixed metaphyseal sleeve from a prior revision. We compared survivorship, radiographs, and clinical outcomes of a rotating-hinge total knee arthroplasty mated to a new metaphyseal sleeve vs a well-fixed sleeve. Sixty patients with an S-ROM Noiles (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN) rotating-hinge total knee arthroplasty implanted from 1998 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Nine patients (15%) had the femoral component mated to a well-fixed sleeve and 51 patients (85%) had a new sleeve. Mean age was 68 years, 68% were female, and mean body mass index was 33 kg/m2. The incidences of re-revision and reoperation were calculated, Knee Society Scores were measured, and radiographs were reviewed. Mean follow-up was 5 years. There were 2 re-revisions (22%) in patients with a well-fixed sleeve: 1 for infection and 1 for aseptic loosening of the femur and tibia. There were no unique failures including the taper junction. Nine patients (18%) with a new sleeve were re-revised: 7 for infection and 2 for tibial aseptic loosening. The mean Knee Society Score for all patients improved from 39 to 73. Radiographically, all components were well fixed except for one loose femur in a patient with a new sleeve. Mating an S-ROM femur to a well-fixed sleeve from a prior revision is a safe, simple, and durable option in the short term that prevents morbidity associated with removal of a well-fixed sleeve. No new modes of failure were observed. IV (retrospective), Therapeutic.

Intermediate-Term Survivorship of Metaphyseal Cones and Sleeves in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundBoth cones or sleeves have been developed to address metaphyseal bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but few studies have directly compared the outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare the survivorship and aseptic revision rates between metaphyseal cones and sleeves at intermediate follow-up. MethodsWe reviewed a consecutive series of 1,172 revision TKA patients between 2009 and 2018 with a minimum two-year follow-up on all patients. We compared demographics, surgical indication, stem fixation, constraint, rates of rerevision, and Short-Form-12 scores between patients with cones and sleeves. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify the effect of cones and sleeves on aseptic rerevision. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to compare aseptic survivorship of cones and sleeves. ResultsThere were 194 tibial cones (17%), 107 tibial sleeves (9%), 31 femoral cones (3%), and 135 femoral sleeves (12%) with a mean follow-up of 6.5 years (range: 2-12 years). There was no difference in demographics, indication, stem fixation, or constraint (P > .05). Although overall aseptic failure rates may be lower for tibial sleeves, there were no significant differences in survivorship over a one-year, two-year, and five-year follow-up when both tibial and femoral sleeves were directly compared to cones. ConclusionBoth tibial and femoral sleeves and cones perform well at an intermediate-term follow-up. Further investigation of these two are required to better understand their survivorship relative to each other.

Metaphyseal Sleeves in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Provide Reliable Fixation and Excellent Medium to Long-Term Implant Survivorship

BackgroundAddressing bone loss and securing implant fixation can be challenging in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We present the results of a large series of revision TKAs using a metaphyseal sleeve. MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 319 revision TKAs with the use of a metaphyseal sleeve that had been followed up for at least 2 years, using a prospectively collected database. The mean follow-up was 91 months, and 73 patients were followed up for more than 10 years. ResultsImplant survivorship was 99.1% at 3 years, 98.7% at 5 years, and 97.8% at 10 years. No metaphyseal sleeve was revised for aseptic loosening. Final radiographic review showed that there were radiolucent lines present in 2.8% of tibial sleeves and 2.7% of femoral sleeves; none of these had progressed and none were revised. About 3.7% of tibial sleeves subsided more than 1 mm compared with the immediate postoperative X-ray but all stabilized and none were revised. ConclusionUse of a metaphyseal sleeve in revision TKA is associated with excellent survivorship and radiographic outcome in the medium to long term.

Distribution of Bone Ongrowth in Metaphyseal Sleeves for Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrieval Analysis

BackgroundThe metaphyseal region of the bone has been recognized by its importance to the overall stability of a revision construct. Porous titanium metaphyseal sleeves to enhance biologic fixation can be used to manage bone loss encountered during revision total knee arthroplasty. While clinical results for metaphyseal sleeves are encouraging, there is little information on the extent to which biologic fixation is achievable with metaphyseal sleeves. We examined retrieved metaphyseal sleeves to determine the amount of bone ongrowth. Materials and MethodsWe studied 14 tibial and 11 femoral retrieved metaphyseal sleeves from 16 typical arthroplasty patients. Prerevision radiographs were reviewed for the presence of biologic fixation to the sleeves and the stem canal fill ratio. Bone ongrowth was assessed regionally in the anterior, posterior, medial, and lateral areas of the retrieved implants. ResultsBone ongrowth covered on average 14.7 ± 3.4% of the entire porous surface of the tibial sleeves. The lateral and anterior surfaces had a significantly greater proportion (P < .05) of bone ongrowth compared with the posterior and medial surfaces of the tibial components. Bone ongrowth covered on average 21.3 ± 2.6% of the entire porous surface of the femoral sleeves. No differences were found in the proportion of bone ongrowth among the posterior, medial, lateral, and anterior surfaces of the femoral. No significant association was found between the clinical, demographic, or radiographic factors and the pattern or quantity of bone ongrowth. DiscussionThis study demonstrates that sufficient fixation can be achieved with only limited amounts of bone ongrowth (14.7% in tibial sleeves and 21.3% in femoral sleeves).

Failure and Fatigue Fracture at the Femoral Stem-Metaphyseal Sleeve Junction in a Modular Knee Prosthesis

A 66-year-old active man had undergone revision total knee replacement surgery with a femoral metaphyseal sleeve and a cemented stem in 2013 after loosening of the implant following the primary knee arthroplasty. He was overweight and had a high activity level, and there had been progressive osteolysis surrounding the distal aspect of the femoral sleeve. In 2017, the metaphyseal sleeve had loosened, resulting in corrosion of the threaded taper and catastrophic failure of the implant, with a fracture of the stem at the junction of the sleeve. This unique method of failure in this knee implant highlights a weak point in the design. Clinicians must be aware of the increased likelihood of this type of failure with these implants in patients who have contributory factors.

Use of Metaphyseal Sleeves in Revision Knee Arthroplasty

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.

Use of Metaphyseal Sleeves in Revision Knee Arthroplasty

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.

Revision total knee arthroplasty with porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves provides radiographic ingrowth and stable fixation.

Porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves are designed to fill bone defects and facilitate osseointegration when bone loss in encountered during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study is to evaluate short-term results of porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves with regards to implant fixation and clinical outcomes. A retrospective review was conducted on 50 patients (79 sleeves-49 tibial and 30 femoral) who had a press-fit metaphyseal sleeve with revision TKA. Tibial and femoral bone loss was classified according to the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) bone defect classification. Post-operative complications of infection, revision surgery, and dislocation were assessed. Follow-up radiographs were evaluated for signs of loosening using the criteria developed by the Knee Society. The median follow-up was 58.8months (range 25.8-93.0months). The bone loss classifications were 1 type 1, 30 type 2a, 2 type 2b, and 17 type 3, and with regards to the femur, 5 were type 1, 8 type 2a, 31 type 2b, and 6 type 3. At final follow-up, 41/45 (91.1%) tibial and 28/29 (96.6%) femoral sleeves showed radiographic evidence of ingrowth. Of these 69 patients, all showed radiographic evidence of bony ingrowth. Three sleeves were revised for infection and two for loosening. The re-operation rate for loosening was 5/74 (6.8%) and for any reason was 14/74 (18.9%). Modular porous-coated press fit metaphyseal sleeves fill defects and provide evidence of radiographic ingrowth. Short-term stable fixation can be achieved with sleeves, which is helpful as more patients undergo revision total knee arthroplasty with greater bone loss. Longer duration studies are needed to ascertain the survival rate of these implants. IV.

Survivorship of Metaphyseal Sleeves in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundMetaphyseal fixation has promising early results in providing component stability and fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, there are limited studies on midterm results of metaphyseal sleeves. We analyzed complications, rerevisions, and survivorship free of revision for aseptic loosening of metaphyseal sleeves in revision TKA. MethodsTwo hundred eighty patients with 393 metaphyseal sleeves (144 femoral, 249 tibial) implanted during revision TKA from 2006-2014 were reviewed. Sleeves were most commonly cemented (55% femoral, 72% tibial). Mean follow-up was 3 years, mean age was 66 years, and mean body mass index was 34 kg/m2. Indications for revision TKA included 2-stage reimplantation for deep infection (37%), aseptic loosening of the tibia (14%), femur (12%), or both components (9%), and instability (14%). ResultsThere was a 12% rate of perioperative complications, most commonly intraoperative fracture (6.5%). Eight sleeves (2.5%) required removal: 6 (2%) during component resection for deep infection (all were well-fixed at removal) as well as 1 (0.8%) femoral sleeve and 1 (0.8%) tibial sleeve for aseptic loosening. Five-year survivorship free of revision for aseptic loosening was 96% and 99.5% for femoral and tibial sleeves, respectively. Level of constraint, bone loss, sleeve and/or stem fixation, and revision indication did not significantly affect outcomes. ConclusionMetaphyseal sleeve fixation to enhance component stability during revision TKA has a 5-year survivorship free of revision for aseptic loosening of 96% and 99.5% in femoral and tibial sleeves, respectively. Both cemented and cementless sleeve fixation provides reliable durability at intermediate follow-up.

Removing a well-fixed femoral sleeve during revision total knee arthroplasty.

The following surgical technique describes a case of a 51-year-old man with severe juvenile rheumatoid arthritis that required a 2-stage revision of an infected revision total knee implant. The patient had previously been implanted with a revision rotating platform, constrained condylar device which gained excellent fixation through the use of diaphyseal-engaging stems, and a well-ingrown, fully porous-coated femoral metaphyseal sleeve. To avoid intraoperative complications while removing the femoral sleeve, a novel technique for femoral sleeve extraction was used. Using this technique, the femoral sleeve was successfully removed without intraoperative fracture or substantial bone loss.

Cementless Modular Total Hip Arthroplasty with Subtrochanteric Shortening Osteotomy for Hips with Developmental Dysplasia

The purpose of this retrospective study was to analyze the functional and radiographic results of cementless, modular total hip arthroplasty combined with subtrochanteric osteotomy for the treatment of patients who had had Crowe Group-IV developmental dysplasia of the hip as a child. Twenty-five consecutive patients (thirty-three hips) who had previously had Crowe Group-IV developmental dysplasia of the hip were treated with a modular cementless prosthesis at a mean age of sixty years. The mean follow-up period was eight years (range, five to eleven years). The acetabular cup was placed in the position of the anatomical hip center in every patient. Subtrochanteric femoral shortening osteotomy was performed with use of a step-cut design. The mean Merle d'Aubigné and Postel hip score improved from 9 to 16 points (out of a maximum of 18 points). The mean limb-length discrepancy in seventeen patients with unilateral involvement was reduced from 5.1 cm (range, 3.7 to 6.5 cm) to 2.8 cm (range, 1.4 to 4.6 cm). Two patients had a positive Trendelenburg sign, and three had a slight limp at the time of the latest follow-up. No cases of nonunion or nerve palsy were encountered. Postoperative dislocations occurred in two hips. One hip showed progressive radiolucent lines around the proximal femoral sleeve within two years after the surgery, and this was followed by progressive stem subsidence. Only one femoral stem was revised. Cementless, modular total hip arthroplasty combined with subtrochanteric osteotomy for the treatment of patients with prior Crowe Group-IV developmental dysplasia of the hip resulted in satisfactory outcomes. Hips with poor bone quality and a developmentally short femoral neck present technical challenges with regard to achieving sufficient rotatory stability, following osteotomy, for osseointegration of the modular implants. Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Modular Femoral Sleeve and Stem Implant Provides Long-term Total Hip Survivorship

A femoral implant with a modular sleeve and stem has been designed to allow independent and complete metaphyseal-diaphyseal fit and fill as well as independent rotation to accommodate anteversion at the time of THA. In a prospective study we asked whether such a modular femoral sleeve and stem implant used during THA could provide (1) high long-term survivorship; (2) radiographically stable implants without radiolucencies, stress shielding, or osteolysis; and (3) high clinical scores in patients 15 to 20 years after a primary THA. We prospectively evaluated 31 hips that underwent a primary THA using a modular femoral component for clinical outcome (Harris hip score) and radiographic outcome (implant stability, femoral loosening, osteolysis and stress shielding) at a minimum followup of 15 years (mean, 17 years; range, 15-20.2 years). There were no femoral revisions for aseptic loosening; all hips had radiographic evidence of bone ingrowth. Two well-ingrown components were revised for late hematogenous infection. Some degree of proximal femoral disuse atrophy from stress shielding occurred in 23 hips (74%) but was nonprogressive and did not result in any failures or complications. Femoral osteolysis occurred in 18 hips (58%), but we cannot definitively determine whether or not the modular junction contributed to this. These data suggest this modular femoral stem can provide long-term survivorship with no cases of aseptic loosening at 15 to 20 years after primary THA. However, it may be prudent when using this femoral stem to consider an articulation with an alternative bearing or, if the modularity is not needed to address femoral anteversion and metaphyseal-diaphyseal mismatch, to consider a nonmodular femoral stem. Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.