Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Metaphyseal cones in revision TKA show 96% osseointegration and 13.5% re-revision ratePorous metal cones show high success in complex knee revisions

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider metaphyseal cones for RTKA with bone loss; high osseointegration but 13.5% re-revision rate.

This meta-analysis pooled data from 4433 patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) with metaphyseal bone loss to evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes of highly porous metaphyseal cones (tantalum and 3D-printed titanium). The weighted mean follow-up was 49.7 months, with a minimum of 1 year. The primary outcomes were clinical and radiological results, including functional scores, survivorship, cone removal, and radiographic outcomes.

The pooled Knee Society Score Knee was 77.4 (95% CI, 70.6 to 84.3), and the Knee and Function score was 67.5 (95% CI, 58.4 to 76.6). The all-cause re-revision rate was 13.5% (95% CI, 11.0 to 16.2), and the cone removal rate was 3.6% (95% CI, 2.2 to 5.2). Aseptic loosening occurred in 0.7% of cases. Radiographic osseointegration was observed in 96.0% (95% CI, 92.5 to 98.5). Subgroup analyses found no significant difference in survivorship between tantalum and titanium cones (3.7% vs. 2.2%; P = 0.199) or between cemented and hybrid fixation (4.7% vs. 1.9%; P = 0.274). Infection was the predominant cause of cone revision.

The authors note that modern metaphyseal cones have high osseointegration rates and implant survivorship, with comparable outcomes across materials and fixation strategies. However, the meta-analysis includes observational and RCT data, and the authors do not report specific limitations, funding, or conflicts of interest. Certainty of evidence is not reported. These findings should be interpreted with caution given the mixed study designs and lack of reported limitations.

When a primary knee replacement fails, surgeons often face a difficult challenge: replacing the joint when there is significant bone loss. To fix this, they sometimes use metaphyseal cones. These are porous structures made of materials like tantalum or 3D-printed titanium designed to help the bone grow into the implant and stay stable.

A large review of data from over 4,000 patients shows these cones perform well. Patients reported good functional scores, and the cones showed a 96% rate of osseointegration, which is the process where bone grows into the metal. The study also found that both tantalum and titanium materials performed similarly, as did different methods of securing the implant.

While the results are promising, there are still risks to consider. The study noted that infection was the main reason for removing a cone if one had to be taken out. However, the overall rate of removing these cones was low, at 3.6%. Because this data comes from a mix of different study types, talk to your surgeon about how these specific materials might fit your unique needs.

What this means for you:
Porous metal cones show high success and stable integration in complex revision knee surgeries.

Common questions

What are the different materials used for these cones?

The study looked at cones made from tantalum and 3D-printed titanium. The results showed that both materials performed similarly in terms of survivorship, with no significant difference found between the two types of metal.

How well does the bone grow into the metal cone?

The study reported a 96% rate of radiographic osseointegration. This means that in the vast majority of cases, the bone successfully grew into the porous structure of the cone to provide stability.

Are there any risks or reasons for removing the cone?

The study found a 3.6% rate of cone removal. When a cone did need to be removed, the primary reason reported was infection. The overall rate of loosening of the implant was very low at 0.7%.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 4,433
EvidenceLevel 1
Follow-up12.0 mo
PublishedOct 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Metaphyseal bone loss represents a major challenge in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). Highly porous metaphyseal cones have potential for osseointegration and durable fixation. While early evidence was limited to tantalum cones, newer designs, such as three-dimensional-printed titanium cones, have been introduced by multiple manufacturers, necessitating an updated synthesis of the literature. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception through October 1, 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational cohorts reporting clinical or radiological outcomes of metaphyseal cones in RTKA with a minimum 1-year follow-up. Demographics, implant characteristics, functional scores, survivorship, cone removal rates, and radiographic outcomes were recorded. Pooled analyses were performed using random-effects models, with subgroup analyses by cone material and fixation type. There were 63 studies comprising 4,433 patients and 5,435 cones that were included, with 79.9% of femora and 75.4% of tibiae involving Anderson Orthopedic Research Institute type 2B or 3 defects. RESULTS: Significant improvements in function were observed, with pooled Knee Society Score Knee and Function scores of 77.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.6 to 84.3) and 67.5 (95% CI, 58.4 to 76.6), respectively. The pooled all-cause re-revision rate at a weighted mean follow-up of 49.7 months was 13.5% (95% CI, 11.0 to 16.2), most commonly due to infection, whereas cone removal occurred in 3.6% (95% CI, 2.2 to 5.2), with aseptic loosening accounting for only 0.7%. Radiographic osseointegration was achieved in 96.0% (95% CI, 92.5 to 98.5). Subgroup analyses demonstrated no significant difference in survivorship between tantalum versus titanium cones (3.7 versus 2.2%, P = 0.199) and cemented versus hybrid fixation (4.7 versus 1.9%, P = 0.274). CONCLUSIONS: Modern metaphyseal cones have high osseointegration rates and implant survivorship in RTKA, with comparable outcomes noted across different cone materials and fixation strategies. Failure due to aseptic loosening is exceedingly rare, with infection being the predominant cause of cone revision.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.