Arthroplasty Today (Apr 2024)

Off-the-Shelf Tibial Cone Sizes May Not Accommodate All Patients’ Bone Morphology and May Lead to Cortical Breaches in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A 3D Modeling Study

  • Wei Shao Tung, BS,
  • Kunsel Kunsel, BS,
  • Gregory R. Roytman, DC,
  • Claire A. Donnelley, MD,
  • Donald Pratola, BS,
  • Steven M. Tommasini, PhD,
  • Jenna Bernstein, MD,
  • Daniel H. Wiznia, MD

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 26
p. 101340

Abstract

Read online

Background: In revision total knee arthroplasty, tibial cones have demonstrated improved longevity and reduced incidence of aseptic loosening. Several currently available “off-the-shelf” (OTS) cone systems may not have sizes to accommodate all patient bone morphologies. Methods: Computed tomographies from one hundred primary total knee arthroplasty patients and dimensions of 4 OTS cones were obtained. Press-fit stems were positioned in 3D tibia models to fit the diaphyseal trajectory. Cones were positioned around the stem at 1, 6, and 13 mm resections measured from the trough of the medial tibial plateau, simulating proximal tibial cuts and bone loss. Tibias were examined for cortical breaching following modeled cone preparation. Results: Increased rate of breaching was observed as size and depth of the cone increased. In 2/49 (4.1%) male and 19/46 (41.3%) female tibias, cones could not be positioned without breaching. No breaches were found in 22/49 (45.0%) male and 5/46 (10.9%) female tibias. For every 1 centimeter increase in patient height, odds of breaching decreased by 12% (odds ratio: 0.88, confidence interval: 0.84, 0.92). For every size increase in cone width, odds of breaching increased by 34% (odds ratio: 1.34, confidence interval: 1.28, 1.47). Placing cones deeper also increased breaching compared to the 1 mm cut. Conclusions: In revision total knee arthroplasty, smaller OTS or custom tibial cones may be needed to fit a patient’s proximal tibial geometry. This is especially true in patients not accommodated by the OTS cone sizes we tested, which impacted shorter patients and/or those with substantial bone loss requiring more tibial resection and deeper cone placement. Use of smaller or custom tibial cones should be considered where indicated.

Keywords