Comparison of Different Strategies in Revision Arthroplasty of the Knee with Severe Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

Background: In revision total knee arthroplasty large bone lesions can jeopardize correct implant orientation and fixation. Different strategies have been proposed to tackle this issue. The purpose of this review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the midterm clinical and survivorship results of porous cones and porous-coated sleeves compared to morselized and structural grafts.

Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature on the different strategies targeting moderate to large metaphyseal bone defects. The literature was evaluated for methodological quality. We analyzed results on survivorship using logistic regression correcting for follow-up time and number of knees. We compared these results using forest plots for early and midterm follow-up. Clinical outcome was evaluated by comparing standardized mean difference of patient-related outcome measures.

Results: A total of 77 articles analyzing 4,391 knees were included. The logistic regression curve showed a nonsignificant odds ratio (OR) at 10 years of 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.699-1.192, P = .49) for failure comparing all porous implants with all grafting procedures. The available clinical reports show a bigger standardized mean difference increase for tantalum cones (OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.71-4.37) than for porous sleeves (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.88-2.57).

Conclusion: Our analysis shows that the size and quality of the literature on metaphyseal bone defects is progressively improving. Porous implants are effective in tackling metaphyseal bone defects showing good survivorship outcome at midterm follow-up. In younger patients with less constrained prosthetic implants, surgeons might still consider the use of grafts without risking worse outcomes.