Early migration following revision total knee arthroplasty with tibial metaphyseal cones: a 2-year prospective RSA cohort study of 25 patients
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2026.45964Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Implants, Knee, Metaphyseal cones, OsteoarthrosisAbstract
Background and purpose: In revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), cones can enhance stable fixation in the case of suboptimal metaphyseal bone stock. Combined with stems of sufficient length, cones can offer support and promote osseointegration without graft-related complications. However, their mechanical stability remains underexplored. We aimed to evaluate the stability of tibial rTKA constructs with metaphyseal cones using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) over a 2-year follow-up.
Methods: 25 patients undergoing rTKA with a tibial cone were included. Tantalum markers were placed in the cancellous bone intraoperatively, before placement of the revision construct, to enable migration measurements using model-based RSA (MB-RSA). Tibial component migration was assessed at baseline, 6-week, 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up, with main outcome parameters being total translation (TT) and total rotation (TR) at 2-year follow-up. Clinical outcomes included VAS pain and satisfaction, the Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Score, KOOS-PS, and adverse events.
Results: At 2-year follow-up the least-squares mean TT was 0.59 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40–0.78) and TR was 0.76° (CI 0.57–0.96). Migration measures demonstrated substantial inter-individual variability, with heterogeneous early migration patterns across patients. Between 1 and 2 years, median changes in migration were small at group level. At 2 years, 3 of 23 patients had TT > 1 mm and 6 had TR > 1°. Clinical outcome scores generally improved until 6 months to 1 year, followed by a trend towards decline. There was 1 re-revision for aseptic loosening after 1-year follow-up and 1 insert exchange for knee instability.
Conclusion: Tibial rTKA constructs with metaphyseal cones demonstrate heterogeneous early migration, followed by limited additional migration at group level between 1 and 2 years. While most constructs showed low migration at 2 years, several patients exhibited increased migration.
Downloads
References
Morgan-Jones R, Oussedik S I, Graichen H, Haddad F S. Zonal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B(2): 147-9. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.34144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.34144
van Laarhoven SN, Nota S, van Hellemondt GG, Schreurs BW, Wymenga AB, Heesterbeek PJC. Association between postoperative zonal fixation of hybrid tibial components in revision total knee arthroplasty and subsequent aseptic loosening. Bone Joint J 2025; 107-B(1): 65-71. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.107B1.BJJ-2024-0241.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.107B1.BJJ-2024-0241.R1
Senesi G, Barone G, Pinelli S, Scoppolini Massini M, Zinno R, Alesi D, et al. The relationship between stress shielding, bone density changes and implant migration, failure and fracture after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Exp Orthop 2025; 12(3): e70350. doi: 10.1002/jeo2.70350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jeo2.70350
Kamath A F, Lewallen D G, Hanssen A D. Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty: a five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97(3): 216-23. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00540
Long W J, Scuderi G R. Porous tantalum cones for large metaphyseal tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24(7): 1086-92. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.08.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.08.011
Heidenreich M J, Lanting B A, McCalden R W, Naudie D D, Howard J L, MacDonald S J, et al. Survivorship of metaphyseal cones and sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37(6S): S263-S9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.02.074. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.02.074
Abdelaziz H, Jaramillo R, Gehrke T, Ohlmeier M, Citak M. clinical survivorship of aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty using hinged knees and tantalum cones at minimum 10-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34(12): 3018-22. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.06.057. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.06.057
De Martino I, Mancino F, Di Matteo V, Singlitico A, Maccauro G, Gasparini G. Tantalum cones for severe bone defects in revision knee arthroplasty: a minimum 10-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38(5): 886-92. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.11.013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.11.013
Pijls B G, Valstar E R, Nouta K A, Plevier J W, Fiocco M, Middeldorp S, et al. Early migration of tibial components is associated with late revision: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21,000 knee arthroplasties. Acta Orthop 2012; 83(6): 614-24. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.747052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2012.747052
Laende E K, Richardson C G, Dunbar M J. Predictive value of short-term migration in determining long-term stable fixation in cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasties. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B(7_Supple_C): 55-60. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B7.BJJ-2018-1493.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B7.BJJ-2018-1493.R1
World Medical Assn. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013; 310(20): 2191-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
Kaptein B L, Pijls B, Koster L, Krrholm J, Hull M, Niesen A, et al. Guideline for RSA and CT-RSA implant migration measurements: an update of standardizations and recommendations. Acta Orthop 2024; 95: 256-67. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2024.40709. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.40709
Cuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth 2019; 13(Suppl 1): S31-S4. doi: 10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18
Smith & Nephew I. LEGION Revision Knee Surgical Technique: Smith & Nephew, Inc; 2022. Available from: https://smith-nephew.stylelabs.cloud/api/public/content/64bf03054cc14bf9933b6e98802932a5?v=2c5354b7&download=true
Belt M, Smulders K, van Houten A, Wymenga A, Heesterbeek P, van Hellemondt G. What is the reliability of a new classification for bone defects in revision TKA based on preoperative radiographs? Clin Orthop Relat R.es 2020; 478(9): 2057-64. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001084 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000001084
Kaptein B L, Valstar E R, Stoel B C, Rozing P M, Reiber J H. A new type of model-based Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis for solving the occluded marker problem. J Biomech 2005; 38(11): 2330-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.09.018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.09.018
Murray D W, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard D J, Carr A J, et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89(8): 1010-14. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424
Insall J N, Dorr L D, Scott R D, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989(248): 13-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198911000-00004
de Groot I B, Favejee M M, Reijman M, Verhaar J A, Terwee C B. The Dutch version of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score: a validation study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008; 6: 16. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-6-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-6-16
Khow Y Z, Liow M H L, Goh G S, Chen J Y, Lo N N, Yeo S J. The Oxford Knee Score minimal clinically important difference for revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2021; 32: 211-17. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2021.08.020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2021.08.020
Khow Y Z, Liow M H L, Goh G S, Chen J Y, Lo N N, Yeo S J. Defining the minimal clinically important difference for the Knee Society score following revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2022; 30(8): 2744-52. doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06628-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06628-2
Danoff J R, Goel R, Sutton R, Maltenfort M G, Austin M S. How much pain is significant? Defining the minimal clinically important difference for the visual analog scale for pain after total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33(7S): S71-S5 e2. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.029
Singh J A, Luo R, Landon G C, Suarez-Almazor M. Reliability and clinically important improvement thresholds for osteoarthritis pain and function scales: a multicenter study. J Rheumatol 2014; 41(3): 509-15. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.130609. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.130609
Mills K, Wymenga A B, van Hellemondt G G, Heesterbeek P J C. No difference in long-term micromotion between fully cemented and hybrid fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Bone Joint J 2022; 104-B(7): 875-83. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.104B7.BJJ-2021-1600.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.104B7.BJJ-2021-1600.R1
Ryd L, Albrektsson B E, Carlsson L, Dansgard F, Herberts P, Lindstrand A, et al. Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis as a predictor of mechanical loosening of knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995; 77(3): 377-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.77B3.7744919
Puijk R, Singh J, Puijk R H, Laende E K, Plevier J W M, Nolte P A, et al. Evaluation and refinement of thresholds for early migration of total knee replacements as an estimator of late aseptic loosening: an updated systematic review of RSA and survival studies. Acta Orthop 2025; 96: 1-10. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2024.42574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.42574
Beckmann N A, Mueller S, Gondan M, Jaeger S, Reiner T, Bitsch R G. Treatment of severe bone defects during revision total knee arthroplasty with structural allografts and porous metal cones-a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30(2): 249-53. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.016
Shichman I, Anil U, van Hellemondt G, Gupta S, Willems J, Deshmukh A J, et al. Mid term outcomes of a novel metaphyseal porous titanium cone in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2023; 46:102282. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2023.102282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2023.102282
Jacquet C, Ros F, Guy S, Parratte S, Ollivier M, Argenson J N. Trabecular metal cones combined with short cemented stem allow favorable outcomes in aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36(2): 657-63. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.08.058. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.08.058
Xie S, Conlisk N, Hamilton D, Scott C, Burnett R, Pankaj P. Metaphyseal cones in revision total knee arthroplasty: the role of stems. Bone Joint Res 2020; 9(4): 162-72. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.94.BJR-2019-0239.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.94.BJR-2019-0239.R1
Petersen E T, Vind T D, Jurgens-Lahnstein J H, Christensen R, de Raedt S, Bruel A, et al. Evaluation of automated radiostereometric image registration in total knee arthroplasty utilizing a synthetic-based and a CT-based volumetric model. J Orthop Res 2023; 41(2): 436-46. doi: 10.1002/jor.25359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.25359
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Kelly Mills, Maartje Belt, Jon H M Goosen, Gijs G van Hellemondt, Petra J C Heesterbeek
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
PlumX (by Elsevier) is an altmetrics platform that tracks and visualizes the online attention, usage, captures, citations, and social media engagement.
