Metaphyseal cones and sleeves are similar in improving short- and mid-term outcomes in Total Knee Arthroplasty revisions.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and metanalysis was to assess clinical and radiological outcomes of metaphyseal sleeves and cones and to identify their possible advantages and disadvantages.

METHODS

A comprehensive search from the inception of the databases to March 2021 was performed on Medline, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, Ovid, and Google scholar databases. Coleman Methodology Score was used for quality assessment. Author, year of publication, type of study, level of evidence, sample size, number of patients, number of knees treated, mean age, gender, mean follow-up, clinical outcomes, complications, the reason for revision and, type of prosthesis were extracted for analysis. Clinical studies providing data about patient's outcomes after the primary and Total Knee Arthroplasty revision with the usage of sleeves or cones and a minimum of 2 years of follow-up were included.

RESULTS

The literature search and cross-referencing resulted in a total of 93 articles, but only 30 articles were appropriate for the systematic review. Comparable clinical results were reported between cones and sleeves. The meta-analysis showed a greater incidence of intraoperative fractures in patients treated with sleeves (1.6%, [95% CI 0.7; 3.4] in cones and 4.6%, [95% CI 3.3; 6.4] in sleeves, p = 0.01), while the risk of postoperative fractures (4.3%, [95% CI 2.7; 7] in cones and 2.1%, [95% CI 1.2; 3.5] in sleeves, p = 0.04) and infections (8.5%, [95% CI 6; 12] in cones and 3.7%, [95% CI 2.1; 7.3] in sleeves, p = 0.03) was higher with cones.

CONCLUSION

A higher incidence of intraoperative fracture was reported in patients treated with sleeves, while a higher rate of postoperative fractures and infections was described in patients treated with cones. Nonetheless, complications were reported in both groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.