Epiphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between trabecular metal and titanium augments

IntroductionThe purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the medium-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of two series of patients treated for revision TKA: one implanted with trabecular metal (TM) augments and one implanted with classic titanium augments.Materials and methodsA total of 85 patients with a type 2 AORI defect underwent revision TKA and were treated either with TM epiphyseal augments directly screwed in the bone or with traditional titanium augments. There were 46 patients in the TM group and 39 patients in the titanium group included in the study. All the patients received the same varus-valgus constrained implant and no metaphyseal fixation devices were used.ResultsAfter a mean follow-up of 66.4 months, no statistically significant difference was observed in terms of failure for aseptic loosening between the two groups (4% in the TM group and 7.8% in the titanium group, p = 0.35). The ten-year survival using aseptic loosening as endpoint was 90.5% (95% CI 94.1-98.6) in the TM group and 85% (95% CI 101.9-119.3) in the titanium group (p = 0.26). A statistically significant difference was detected for the presence of RLL. No RLL were found under the studied TM augments compared to 13.7% of the titanium augments (p = 0.01).ConclusionThe use of TM augments directly screwed to the epiphysis of the femur and the tibia reduced the incidence of RLL compared to standard titanium augments during revision TKA with promising medium-term results.