Biomechanical analysis of patient specific cone vs conventional stem in revision total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: In revision total knee arthroplasty, addressing significant bone loss often involves the use of cemented or press-fit stems to ensure implant stability and long-term fixation. A possible alternative to stem was recently introduced utilizing custom-made porous metaphyseal cones, designed to reconstruct the missing tibial and femoral geometries. Early clinical and radiological assessments have shown promising results. The objective of this research was to biomechanically evaluate the performances of these custom-made cones. METHODS: The biomechanical study was conducted using a validated finite element model. The bone geometries of a patient (selected for their history of four knee revisions due to infection and periprosthetic fractures, followed by a successful treatment with custom-made 3D-printed metaphyseal cones) were employed for the study. On these bone models, different revision scenarios were simulated and examined biomechanically: (A) custom-made cementless metaphyseal cones; (B) cemented stems; (C) press-fit stems; (D) distal femoral reconstruction with press-fit stem. All the models were analyzed at 0 °and 90 °of flexion, under physiological load conditions simulating daily activities; stress distribution, average Von-Mises stresses and risk of fracture were then analyzed and compared among configurations. RESULTS: The use of custom-made 3D-printed cones exhibited the most favorable stress distribution in both femoral and tibial bones. Tibial bone stress was evenly distributed in custom-made cone configurations, while stress concentration was observed in distal regions for the other scenarios. Additionally, custom-made cones displayed overall homogeneity and lower stress levels, potentially contributing to limit pain. Symmetrical stress distribution was observed between the lateral and medial proximal tibia in custom-made cone models, whereas other scenarios exhibited uneven stress, particularly in the anterior tibial bone. CONCLUSIONS: The biomechanical analysis of porous custom-made metaphyseal cones in re-revision arthroplasties is in agreement with the positive clinical and radiological outcomes. These findings provide valuable insights into the potential benefits of using custom-made cones, which offer more uniform stress distribution and may contribute to improve patient outcomes in revision TKA procedures. Further studies in this direction are warranted to validate these biomechanical findings.

Metal-backed or all-poly tibial components: which are better for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A propensity-score-matching retrospective study at the 5-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective medium-term follow-up study compares the outcomes of medial fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA) using a cemented metal-backed (MB) or an all-polyethylene (AP) tibial component. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The database of our institution was mined for primary mUKA patients implanted with an MB or an AP tibial component (the MB-UKA and AP-UKA groups, respectively) from 2015 to 2018. We compared patient demographics, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and motion analysis data obtained with the Riablo™ system (CoRehab, Trento, Italy). We conducted propensity-score-matching (PSM) analysis (1:1) using multiple variables. RESULTS: PSM analysis yielded 77 pairs of MB-UKA and AP-UKA patients. At 5 years, the physical component summary (PCS) score was 52.4 ± 8.3 in MB-UKA and 48.2 ± 8.3 in AP-UKA patients (p < 0.001). The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) was 82.9 ± 18.8 in MB-UKAs and 73.4 ± 22.5 in AP-UKAs (p = 0.015). Tibial pain was reported by 7.8% of the MB-UKA and 35.1% of the AP-UKA patients (p < 0.001). Static postural sway was, respectively, 3.9 ± 2.1 cm and 5.4 ± 2.3 (p = 0.0002), and gait symmetry was, respectively, 92.7% ± 3.7 cm and 90.4% ± 5.4 cm (p = 0.006). Patient satisfaction was 9.2 ± 0.8 in the MB-UKA and 8.3 ± 2.0 in the AP-UKA group (p < 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: MB-UKA patients experienced significantly better 5-year static sway and gait symmetry outcomes than AP-UKA patients. Although the PROMs of the two groups overlapped, MB-UKA patients had a lower incidence of tibial pain, better FJS-12 and PCS scores, and were more satisfied.