Abstract
Introduction
Bone loss management represents one of the most challenging issues for the orthopaedic surgeon. In most cases, stems, structural allograft, TMcones, and sleeves are adequate to allow optimal implant stability and durable fixation. In selected cases of wide metadiaphyseal bone defects, these devices do not provide proper intraoperative stability. In such scenarios, further steps are needed and include complex modular reconstruction, substitution with megaprosthesis (exposing patients at high risk of early failure) or joint arthrodesis that can yield unacceptable results. The aim of this paper is to present early results obtained with a new custom-made implant for complex metadiaphyseal bone defects management in knee revision surgery. By means of case presentations the authors would highlight the possibilities and technical notes of this novel device in complex knee revision surgery.
Methods
Since2015, 8 custom-made porous titanium devices were implanted for massive bone defect management in 6 knee arthroplasty revision procedures. Five patients were staged revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and one patient underwent a staged revision for post-traumatic septic arthritis. Main demographic and surgical data were collected. Clinical (Range of Movement [ROM], Knee Society Score [KSS] and Oxford Knee Score [OKS]), radiological findings and complications were recorded at different time points and statistically evaluated. Mean follow up was 19.5 ± 9.6months.
Results
The study group included 4 males and 2 females with a mean age of 63.7 ± 5.5 years and a mean Body Mass Index of 29.3 ± 4.1. Globally, the mean number of previous surgeries was 4.8 ± 2.7. The custom made device was combined with a hinged prosthesis in 5 cases and with a constrained condylar implant in 1 patient. Hybrid fixation was used in all cases. The mean KSS and OKS of the entire population improved significantly from 35.3 ±6.5 and 19.2 ±3.5 preoperatively to 85.8 ±4.0 and 39.3 ±3.1 at the time of last follow-up evaluation (p<0.01). The range of motion improved from 46.7 ±9.8 of mean preoperative flexion and 7.8 ±6.8 of mean preoperative flexion contracture to 93.3 ±10.3 and 1.2 ±2.9 respectively (p<0.01). Radiological analysis showed no migration or implant loosening. No intraoperative or postoperative complication was recorded. One patient required a prolonged antibiotic therapy for positive culture samples of sonication of the retrieved spacer. No implant mismatch between the preoperative planning and the final implant was reported.
Conclusion
The presented custom-made implant showed promising early clinical and radiological results. In extremely selected cases, this new device can be considered a safe and effective surgical step between “off the shelf” reconstruction implants and knee substitution with a tumor megaprosthesis. Accurate surgical planning and intraoperative management of soft tissues and residual bone stock are of paramount importance.
