Skip to main content
OrthoVellum
Clinical Atlas
OrthoVellum
Clinical Atlas

Comprehensive orthopaedic learning and teaching for clinical education. Content is educational only and is not a substitute for local supervision, clinical judgement, or institutional policy.

Library

  • Clinical Topics
  • Blog
  • Site Updates
  • Content Methodology
  • Editorial Policy

Company

  • About Us
  • Authors & Disclosure
  • Editorial Policy
  • Editorial Board
  • Content Methodology
  • Advertising Policy
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog

Legal

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Medical Disclaimer
  • Copyright & DMCA

Support

  • Support OrthoVellum
  • Help Center
  • Accessibility
  • Report an Issue
Evidence. Clarity. Practice.

© 2026 OrthoVellum. For educational purposes only.

Not medical advice. Verify clinically important information against current local guidance.

Revision TKA Bone Loss, Cones and Sleeves

Back to Topics
Contents
0%
Adult ReconstructionKnee Arthroplasty

Revision TKA Bone Loss, Cones and Sleeves

Advanced orthopaedic guide to revision total knee arthroplasty bone loss, including AORI classification, defect mapping, cement, screws, augments, stems, metaphyseal cones, sleeves, rotating hinge indications, operative sequence and complications.

complete
Reviewed: 2026-06-03Maintained by OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

Editorially maintained by OrthoVellum Editorial Team

Clear references, transparent review, and correction process • Published by OrthoVellum Medical Education Team

Editorial boardMethodologyReview policyReport a correction
Educational disclosure

Educational content is reviewed for source visibility, editorial coherence, and correction readiness.

No individual clinician credential is claimed unless a named person is shown.

Verify before clinical use; this is not medical advice or a substitute for local guidance.

High Yield Overview

Revision TKA Bone Loss

Map the defect | rebuild support | fix in zones | constrain only what remains unstable

AORIMain bone-loss classification
Zones 1-3Epiphyseal, metaphyseal, diaphyseal fixation
Cone or sleeveSevere metaphyseal reconstruction
PJI firstInfection must be excluded before aseptic revision

AORI Bone Loss: Treatment Logic

Type 1
PatternMinor contained cancellous loss with intact metaphyseal support.
TreatmentCement, morselised graft, small screws if needed, standard revision component.
Type 2A
PatternOne tibial plateau or one femoral condyle has deficient metaphyseal support.
TreatmentMetal augment, stem and local reconstruction; cone or sleeve if support is poor.
Type 2B
PatternBoth tibial plateaus or both femoral condyles have deficient metaphyseal support.
TreatmentMetaphyseal cone or sleeve, stem extension and appropriate constraint.
Type 3
PatternMajor metaphyseal deficiency with poor segmental support and possible ligament compromise.
TreatmentCone or sleeve with stem; hinge or endoprosthetic reconstruction when soft tissues or host bone are not reconstructable.

Critical Must-Knows

  • Bone loss is classified after implant removal. Pre-operative radiographs often underestimate the final defect.
  • The reconstruction must restore a stable platform before constraint is chosen. Constraint cannot rescue poor fixation or unrecognised infection.
  • Small contained defects can be filled. Larger uncontained defects need structural support rather than cement alone.
  • Metaphyseal fixation is central in modern revision TKA. Cones and sleeves convert deficient metaphysis into a load-sharing support zone.
  • Stem extensions are used for load sharing and alignment control. Cemented, cementless and hybrid fixation each have tradeoffs.

Clinical Pearls

  • "
    AORI is useful because it links defect severity to reconstruction choice; it is not just a naming system.
  • "
    Use augments for peripheral segmental loss when the remaining platform can still support the component.
  • "
    Use a cone when the defect is irregular and the implant needs an independent porous scaffold; use a sleeve when controlled broaching can obtain metaphyseal press-fit with an implant-linked sleeve.
  • "
    Choose CCK or hinge based on residual ligament competence after bone loss and joint line have been reconstructed.

Do not decide the revision implant from the pre-operative AP radiograph

The true bone defect is often larger after components, cement, fibrous membrane and osteolytic debris are removed. The operation should be planned with backups, but the final reconstruction is decided after clean explantation, defect mapping and trial stability assessment.

Revision TKA bone loss reconstruction decision map
A safe reconstruction plan starts with infection status, fixation, AORI grade and ligament competence, then matches the defect to support and constraint.Credit: Original OrthoVellum illustration

Fast Decision Table

Finding After ExplantReconstructionConstraint Implication
Small contained cancellous defect with intact rim and metaphysisCement with or without screws, morselised graft in selected contained defects, standard stemmed revision component if required.PS or low constraint if ligaments and gaps are stable.
Peripheral condylar or tibial plateau segmental loss with usable metaphysisModular metal augment plus stem extension; restore joint line and platform.PS or CCK depending collateral competence and gap balance.
AORI 2B or 3 metaphyseal deficiencyPorous metal cone or metaphyseal sleeve plus stem; build a stable metaphyseal support zone.Often CCK; hinge if global ligament insufficiency remains.
Massive bone loss with extensor mechanism failure, non-reconstructable collateral support or poor host boneRotating hinge, distal femoral replacement, proximal tibial replacement or tumour-style reconstruction in selected cases.High constraint is part of the reconstruction, not a substitute for fixation.
Suspected or confirmed infectionCulture strategy, debridement and infection pathway; one-stage or staged revision depends on organism, host, soft tissue and local practice.Constraint is decided at reimplantation after defect and soft tissues are reassessed.

Core Working Frameworks

MAPBefore reconstruction
FILLDefect strategy
ZONESFixation target
M
Mechanism
Loosening, infection, wear osteolysis, fracture, instability or previous revision.
F
Fill contained loss
Cement, screws or graft only when walls and support remain.
Z
Zone 1
Epiphyseal platform: augments, cement and component surface.
A
AORI after explant
Final grade is assigned after implant and cement removal.
I
Increase support
Augments for peripheral segmental loss.
O
Zone 2
Metaphysis: cones, sleeves and porous ingrowth.
P
Platform
Restore a stable tibial and femoral platform before judging constraint.
L
Load share
Stems and metaphyseal fixation reduce interface overload.
N
Zone 3
Diaphysis: stem alignment and load sharing.
L
Link constraint
Constraint follows residual ligament competence.
E
Evaluate
Check fixation, gaps, rotation and joint line during trialling.
S
Stabilise
Use the least constraint that controls the reconstructed knee.

Map before rebuilding.

Fill small defects; support large defects.

Aim for stable fixation in multiple zones.

MAPBefore reconstruction
M
Mechanism
Loosening, infection, wear osteolysis, fracture, instability or previous revision.
A
AORI after explant
Final grade is assigned after implant and cement removal.
P
Platform
Restore a stable tibial and femoral platform before judging constraint.

Map before rebuilding.

FILLDefect strategy
F
Fill contained loss
Cement, screws or graft only when walls and support remain.
I
Increase support
Augments for peripheral segmental loss.
L
Load share
Stems and metaphyseal fixation reduce interface overload.
L
Link constraint
Constraint follows residual ligament competence.

Fill small defects; support large defects.

ZONESFixation target
Z
Zone 1
Epiphyseal platform: augments, cement and component surface.
O
Zone 2
Metaphysis: cones, sleeves and porous ingrowth.
N
Zone 3
Diaphysis: stem alignment and load sharing.
E
Evaluate
Check fixation, gaps, rotation and joint line during trialling.
S
Stabilise
Use the least constraint that controls the reconstructed knee.

Aim for stable fixation in multiple zones.

Overview and Epidemiology

Revision TKA bone loss is the loss of femoral or tibial host bone that prevents a revision component from obtaining reliable support at the joint surface. It may be cavitary, segmental, contained, uncontained, metaphyseal, diaphyseal, traumatic, infective or iatrogenic.

The practical issue is simple: a revision knee fails if the surgeon restores an implant surface without restoring the bone platform underneath it. Bone loss affects fixation, joint line, offset, ligament tension, constraint choice, extensor mechanism mechanics and the risk of repeat loosening.

Common settings include:

  • Aseptic loosening with progressive implant migration.
  • Polyethylene wear with osteolysis.
  • Periprosthetic joint infection with bone and soft-tissue compromise.
  • Instability with asymmetric overload and component failure.
  • Periprosthetic fracture or component extraction damage.
  • Multiple previous revisions with combined bone and ligament deficiency.

The central question

The important question is not only “how big is the defect?” The important question is “where can this knee obtain durable fixation after the defect is reconstructed?” That is why modern revision planning uses AORI classification together with the zonal fixation concept.

Anatomy and Fixation Concepts

Revision TKA fixation can be understood in three zones. A durable construct usually uses more than one zone, especially when constraint is increased.

Zonal Fixation in Revision TKA

ZoneAnatomyRevision Reconstruction Role
Zone 1: EpiphysisJoint-adjacent condyles, tibial plateau, remaining cortical rim and cancellous platform.Component support, metal augments, cement fill, screws, graft and joint-line restoration.
Zone 2: MetaphysisFlared cancellous bone below the femoral condyles or tibial plateau.Porous metal cone or sleeve fixation; major load-sharing zone for AORI 2B and 3 defects.
Zone 3: DiaphysisFemoral or tibial shaft engaged by the stem.Alignment control, load sharing and bypass of metaphyseal deficiency.

Important mechanical principles:

  • The epiphyseal platform sets joint line, flexion-extension gaps and component seating.
  • The metaphysis provides broad load transfer; when deficient, cones and sleeves reconstruct this region.
  • The diaphysis can guide alignment and reduce interface strain through stem extension.
  • Higher constraint transmits higher forces to fixation interfaces, so fixation must be stronger when constraint increases.
  • Offset stems, augments and sleeves may be needed to avoid forcing malposition just to make a stem fit the canal.
Radiographic example of metaphyseal sleeve reconstruction in revision TKA
Radiographs showing revision TKA reconstruction with metaphyseal sleeve and stem fixation. Real imaging is useful because metaphyseal fixation, stem load sharing and alignment must be assessed together.Credit: Adapted from Pour et al., Arthroplasty, 2020, CC BY 4.0

Pathophysiology

Bone loss develops through mechanical, biological and surgical mechanisms. The mechanism matters because it predicts the soft-tissue envelope and the reconstruction risk.

Failure Mechanism to Bone-Loss Pattern

MechanismTypical DefectPlanning Consequence
Polyethylene wear osteolysisCavitary metaphyseal defects, sometimes with preserved cortical shell.Assess containment. Graft or cement may work only if support remains; large cavitary loss often needs cone or sleeve.
Aseptic looseningProgressive migration, uncontained tibial plateau or femoral condylar loss.Plan augments, stems and metaphyseal support; look for joint-line change.
InfectionBone destruction, membrane, sinus risk, compromised soft tissue and poor biology.Treat infection pathway first; reconstruction may be staged and more constrained.
InstabilityEccentric overload, polyethylene wear, collateral stretching and segmental collapse.Reconstruct bone and diagnose ligament competence before choosing CCK or hinge.
Component extractionIatrogenic cortical perforation, condylar fracture or metaphyseal loss.Use extraction tools carefully and have cones, sleeves, augments, stems and fracture fixation available.
Periprosthetic fractureBone loss plus disrupted cortical tube and possible implant loosening.Combine fracture fixation principles with revision fixation; bypass defects and stress risers.

Classification

AORI is the common language for revision TKA bone defects. It is assigned separately for femur and tibia after implant removal, because cement, membrane, fibrous tissue and loose components can hide the true defect.

AORI Classification and Reconstruction

TypeBone LossTypical Reconstruction
Type 1Metaphyseal bone intact. Minor contained cancellous loss or small defects.Cement, screws, morselised graft in selected contained defects, standard revision component or short stem if needed.
Type 2AMetaphyseal bone damaged in one femoral condyle or one tibial plateau.Metal augment, cement and stem. Consider cone or sleeve if remaining metaphysis is weak.
Type 2BMetaphyseal bone damaged in both condyles or both tibial plateaus.Cone or sleeve commonly required, plus stem and modular augments.
Type 3Metaphyseal segment deficient or non-supportive, often with ligament compromise.Cone or sleeve with stem if reconstructable; hinge or segmental replacement if bone and ligaments are not salvageable.

Defect Shape

ShapeMeaningTreatment Implication
Contained cavitaryWalls remain, but cancellous bone is missing.Graft, cement or porous metaphyseal support depending size and support.
Uncontained cavitaryOne wall is missing, so fill alone is unstable.Needs augment, cone or sleeve to create support.
SegmentalRim, condyle or plateau segment is missing.Metal augment, structural support or segmental reconstruction.
CombinedCavitary plus segmental loss.Often cone or sleeve plus augments and stem.
Diaphyseal compromiseCanal or cortical tube cannot reliably accept a stem.May require longer bypass, offset stem, fracture fixation or endoprosthetic solution.

Classification should change the operation:

  • Type 1 defects can often be filled because the platform remains supportive.
  • Type 2A defects need support for one deficient condyle or plateau.
  • Type 2B defects usually require broader metaphyseal reconstruction.
  • Type 3 defects require a reconstructability decision: cone/sleeve plus stem if salvageable, or hinged/segmental reconstruction if support and ligaments are not salvageable.
  • Defect shape decides whether cement, augment, cone or sleeve is mechanically sensible.

Clinical Presentation and Examination

Patients do not present saying they have AORI 2B bone loss. They present with a failed knee arthroplasty. Bone loss is suspected when symptoms, imaging or implant history suggest loosening, migration, osteolysis or major instability.

History

Ask for:

  • Original arthroplasty indication, date, approach and implant type.
  • Pain pattern: start-up pain suggests loosening; constant inflammatory pain raises concern for infection.
  • Instability: giving way, coronal thrust, recurrent effusion, stairs difficulty or inability to trust the knee.
  • Infection history: wound leakage, previous debridement, antibiotics, sinus, fevers, dental or systemic infection history.
  • Previous revisions, retained hardware, stems, augments or cones/sleeves.
  • Falls or fracture symptoms.
  • Function, walking aids, stair ability and realistic goals.
  • Medical risk: diabetes, obesity, renal disease, immunosuppression, smoking, anticoagulation, vascular disease.

Examination

Inspect:

  • Gait, thrust, flexion contracture, recurvatum and walking aid dependence.
  • Scars, sinus, skin quality, soft-tissue envelope and extensor mechanism.
  • Limb alignment, joint-line height and patellar position.

Palpate and move:

  • Effusion, warmth, tenderness, extensor lag and painful range.
  • Varus-valgus opening at full extension, 30 degrees and 90 degrees.
  • AP instability at 90 degrees.
  • Rotational maltracking and patellar instability.
  • Neurovascular status, especially peroneal nerve function and distal pulses.

Do not miss infection

A painful loose revision knee is infected until proven otherwise. Normal-looking skin and absence of fever do not exclude periprosthetic joint infection. Infection status must be settled before an aseptic bone-loss reconstruction is planned.

Investigations

The investigation plan must answer four questions: is the knee infected, are the components loose or malpositioned, how much bone loss is present, and what implants/extraction tools are required?

Pre-Operative Workup

InvestigationHow To Order ItWhat It Decides
Standing AP, lateral and skyline knee radiographsInclude the entire component and compare with prior films.Radiolucency, migration, subsidence, osteolysis, patellar height, joint line and gross bone loss.
Long-leg alignment radiographHip-knee-ankle standing alignment view.Mechanical axis, extra-articular deformity, stem planning and alignment correction.
Full femur or tibia radiographs when stems are present or plannedImage the entire stem and canal.Stem length, canal diameter, cortical defects, retained hardware and bypass planning.
ESR, CRP and aspiration when indicatedFollow local periprosthetic joint infection pathway.Aseptic reconstruction versus infection revision strategy.
CT with metal artefact reductionUse when osteolysis, rotation, fracture, major bone loss or stem/canal planning is uncertain.Defect extent, cortical shell, component rotation, occult fracture and underestimated tibial/femoral bone loss.
Implant recordsObtain operation notes, labels and prior imaging.Compatible extraction tools, cone/sleeve system, stem offset, augments and backup constraint.

Radiographs underestimate bone loss

Recent work on elective aseptic revision TKA confirms what revision surgeons see in theatre: major intra-operative defects can be underestimated pre-operatively. The theatre plan should include backup augments, cones, sleeves, stems and constraint even when the radiograph looks manageable.

Management

Management is a sequence, not a list of implants. The correct plan depends on infection status, host bone, defect shape, ligament competence, extensor mechanism, patient physiology and available implants.

Metaphyseal cones versus sleeves in revision TKA
Cones and sleeves both aim to restore metaphyseal fixation, but they differ in how they engage bone and connect to the revision implant.Credit: Original OrthoVellum illustration

Non-operative treatment is usually for patients who are medically unfit, have low functional demand, decline surgery or need temporary optimisation before revision. It is not definitive treatment for progressive loosening with major bone loss in a fit patient.

Options include:

  • Activity modification and walking aids.
  • Analgesia and management of inflammatory flares.
  • Bracing for instability when surgery is not suitable.
  • Infection suppression only when advised by the infection team and curative surgery is not appropriate.
  • Optimisation of nutrition, glycaemic control, smoking cessation, anaemia, dental/skin sources and vascular status before surgery.

Failure signs include increasing pain, progressive migration, worsening instability, recurrent falls, fracture risk, sinus or systemic infection features.

Small contained defects can be filled because the remaining cortical or cancellous walls provide support.

Options:

  • Cement alone for very small contained defects.
  • Cement plus screws for contained defects where screws act as rebar.
  • Morselised graft for selected contained cavitary defects when biological restoration is useful.
  • Standard augments only if fill will not restore a stable platform.

Avoid cement-only reconstruction for large uncontained defects. Cement fills space, but it does not replace missing structural support.

Modular metal augments are useful when peripheral bone is missing but enough metaphyseal support remains.

Choose augments when:

  • A femoral condyle or tibial plateau segment is deficient.
  • The defect is too large for cement fill.
  • Joint line or posterior femoral offset needs restoration.
  • Trial components need a stable rectangular platform.

Key decisions:

  • Use distal femoral augments to restore extension gap and joint line.
  • Use posterior femoral augments to restore posterior offset and flexion gap.
  • Use tibial block or wedge augments for plateau deficiency.
  • Add a stem when augment size, bone quality or constraint increases interface load.

A cone is an independent porous scaffold placed into a metaphyseal defect. The revision component is then usually cemented into the cone.

Cones are useful when:

  • The defect is irregular, cavitary or combined.
  • The metaphyseal rim is deficient but the surgeon can prepare a stable host-bone bed.
  • The implant position should not be dictated by the shape of the metaphyseal defect.
  • A modular scaffold is needed under a tibial tray or femoral component.

Practical cautions:

  • Prepare host bone carefully to avoid fracture.
  • Obtain stable rim or metaphyseal contact before cementing the implant.
  • Trial stems and augments with the cone in place.
  • Removing a well-fixed cone at later revision can be difficult.

A metaphyseal sleeve is broached into the metaphysis and locks to the revision implant. It obtains porous ingrowth while being mechanically linked to the component.

Sleeves are useful when:

  • Controlled broaching can obtain axial and rotational stability.
  • The metaphyseal defect can be shaped without sacrificing excessive host bone.
  • Implant system compatibility and offset options allow good component position.
  • The surgeon wants a linked metaphyseal fixation construct.

Practical cautions:

  • Broaching can fracture weak metaphyseal bone.
  • The sleeve can influence final component position.
  • Extraction of a well-fixed sleeve in a later revision can be challenging.
  • Avoid forcing malrotation or malalignment to match the sleeve and canal.

Segmental replacement is reserved for non-reconstructable bone or combined massive bone and ligament deficiency.

Consider distal femoral replacement or proximal tibial replacement when:

  • AORI type 3 loss leaves no reliable metaphyseal or diaphyseal fixation.
  • There is major ligament loss requiring a hinge and segmental replacement.
  • Periprosthetic fracture, tumour-style bone loss or repeated failed revision makes standard reconstruction unsafe.
  • Extensor mechanism and soft-tissue coverage can support the construct.

The tradeoff is a faster mechanical solution with higher infection, extensor mechanism, loosening and re-revision consequences.

Stems and Constraint

Stem Fixation Choices

Stem StrategyAdvantagesTradeoffs
Cemented stemImmediate fixation, useful in poor bone or wide canals, antibiotic cement option in selected cases.Difficult extraction, stress transfer, cement removal burden at re-revision.
Cementless press-fit stemDiaphyseal engagement, easier metaphyseal cement control, potential biological fixation.Canal pain, end-of-stem stress, alignment dictated by canal unless offset stems are used.
Hybrid fixationCement at metaphyseal/component interface with press-fit diaphyseal stem.Requires accurate canal preparation and compatible implant geometry.
Offset stemAllows component position to be independent of canal centre.Adds complexity and requires careful trialling.

Constraint Ladder in Bone-Loss Revision

Implant ConstraintUse WhenDo Not Use As
Posterior-stabilised revisionPCL absent but collaterals are competent and gaps are balanced.A solution for collateral insufficiency.
CCK or VVCMild to moderate coronal laxity after reconstruction, collateral attenuation but not global deficiency.A substitute for uncorrected malalignment or unsupported bone loss.
Rotating hingeGlobal instability, severe collateral insufficiency, major AORI 3 defects, extensor/soft-tissue risk requiring high constraint.A shortcut for poor exposure, poor platform reconstruction or uncertain infection.
Segmental hinged replacementNon-reconstructable distal femur or proximal tibia with major bone and ligament loss.Routine treatment for reconstructable AORI 2B defects.

Surgical Technique

Operative sequence for revision TKA bone loss
The operative sequence is exposure, bone-preserving explantation, defect mapping, platform reconstruction, trial stability and final fixation. Constraint is chosen after the reconstructed knee is tested.Credit: Original OrthoVellum illustration

Position and setup

  • Supine on a radiolucent table if intra-operative imaging may be needed.
  • Tourniquet available; use depends on vascular status, surgeon preference and expected duration.
  • Prepare the whole limb from groin to foot.
  • Have extraction tools, flexible osteotomes, saws, burrs, cables, plates and stems available.
  • Confirm availability of augments, cones, sleeves, CCK, hinge, segmental replacement and backup polyethylene sizes.

Exposure

  • Use the previous midline incision where possible, respecting skin bridges.
  • Develop full-thickness flaps only as much as necessary.
  • Standard medial parapatellar arthrotomy is common.
  • Extensile exposure options include quadriceps snip, V-Y turndown or tibial tubercle osteotomy.
  • Choose extensile exposure early rather than avulsing the patellar tendon during forced eversion.

Component removal

  • Obtain cultures if infection is possible or confirmed.
  • Remove polyethylene first to improve access.
  • Disrupt implant-cement and cement-bone interfaces with thin flexible osteotomes.
  • Work circumferentially and preserve host bone.
  • Remove cement, membrane and osteolytic debris.
  • Protect the collateral insertions, extensor mechanism and posterior neurovascular structures.

Reassess after explant

  • Assign AORI grade only after the components are out.
  • Identify contained, uncontained, segmental and combined defects.
  • Check for fractures, cortical perforation and collateral avulsion.
  • Reconfirm whether the planned reconstruction is still adequate.

Tibial reconstruction

  • Establish a stable tibial platform perpendicular to the planned mechanical axis.
  • Remove only the bone needed to create a flat reference surface.
  • Use augments for plateau deficiency.
  • Prepare the canal for stem alignment and load sharing.
  • Prepare a cone when an independent metaphyseal scaffold is needed.
  • Broach a sleeve when metaphyseal bone can accept a controlled implant-linked press-fit.
  • Trial tray rotation, coverage, offset and stem fit before final fixation.

Pitfalls:

  • Excess tibial resection worsens joint-line elevation.
  • Cement-only fill in a large uncontained medial tibial defect risks collapse.
  • Canal-driven stem position can malrotate or maltranslate the tray unless offset options are used.

Femoral reconstruction

  • Determine distal femoral joint line using epicondyles, adductor tubercle, patellar height and contralateral comparison when available.
  • Use distal augments to restore extension gap and joint line.
  • Use posterior augments to restore posterior offset and flexion gap.
  • Prepare femoral cone or sleeve when condylar/metaphyseal support is inadequate.
  • Use offset stems if the canal position would otherwise force malposition.
  • Check rotation using transepicondylar axis, posterior condylar remnants, Whiteside line if visible and gap symmetry.

Pitfalls:

  • Excess distal femoral bone loss can tempt overstuffing with thick polyethylene instead of restoring distal joint line.
  • Posterior offset loss causes flexion instability.
  • Malrotation creates patellofemoral pain, stiffness and asymmetric gaps.

Trialling

Test the knee before cementing:

  • Extension gap, flexion gap and mid-flexion stability.
  • Varus-valgus opening at full extension, 30 degrees and 90 degrees.
  • AP stability at 90 degrees.
  • Patellar tracking and extensor mechanism tension.
  • Limb alignment, rotation, joint line and range of motion.

Final fixation

  • Cement strategy depends on stem type and implant system.
  • Cement the implant-cone interface when using an independent cone.
  • Seat sleeves according to system technique and avoid malrotation.
  • Remove excess cement, especially posteriorly.
  • Recheck stability after final components are inserted.
  • Close over drains selectively and protect soft tissue.

Post-Operative Care

Post-operative instructions depend on fixation quality, soft-tissue repair and fracture risk.

Aftercare Decisions

IssueTypical ApproachReason
Weight bearingOften weight bearing as tolerated for stable cone/sleeve constructs; restrict if fracture, tenuous fixation, tubercle osteotomy or segmental reconstruction.Protects biological fixation and soft-tissue repairs.
BracingUse selectively for extensor mechanism repair, ligament reconstruction or hinge/soft-tissue concern.Controls early instability and protects repair.
AntibioticsPeri-operative prophylaxis for aseptic cases; organism-specific plan for infection revision.Infection risk is high in complex revision.
VTE preventionUse local arthroplasty protocol with patient-specific risk adjustment.Revision surgery has elevated thrombotic and bleeding risks.
Follow-up imagingEarly baseline AP/lateral, then serial films for migration, radiolucency, fracture, subsidence and loosening.Cones, sleeves and stems need longitudinal assessment.

Complications and Follow-Up

Radiographic example of revision TKA failure with severe bone loss and stemmed construct
Complex revision failure with severe bone loss may require a stemmed, highly constrained construct. Real radiographs help demonstrate why fixation failure risk, constraint and soft-tissue planning must be considered together.Credit: Adapted from Zhang et al., Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 2024, CC BY 4.0

Complications

ComplicationWhy It HappensPrevention or Management
Aseptic looseningPoor fixation, underestimated bone loss, excessive constraint load or failed ingrowth.Multiple-zone fixation, correct stem/augment/cone/sleeve choice, serial radiographs.
InfectionLong surgery, previous operations, dead space, host factors and compromised soft tissue.Optimisation, cultures, meticulous debridement, antibiotic strategy and early recognition.
Intra-operative fractureWeak metaphysis, cone/sleeve preparation, stem broaching or component extraction.Controlled preparation, prophylactic cables when needed, bypass and fixation.
InstabilityWrong constraint, collateral insufficiency, joint-line error, malrotation or extensor mechanism failure.Trial carefully; correct cause before increasing constraint.
Stem pain or stress shieldingDiaphyseal engagement and load transfer.Use appropriate stem length/diameter and counsel patients.
Cone or sleeve extraction difficultySuccessful ingrowth makes later removal demanding.Preserve host bone, use planned extraction technique and counsel about re-revision complexity.
Extensor mechanism failureMultiple operations, patellar tendon avulsion, tubercle osteotomy problems or soft-tissue compromise.Avoid forced exposure; repair and protect early.
Neurovascular injuryDifficult exposure, posterior cement, severe deformity correction or traction.Document baseline, protect posterior structures and avoid blind posterior instrumentation.

Evidence Base

Metaphyseal bone loss review

Review
Key Findings:
  • AORI is widely used because it helps link bone-loss severity with treatment choice.
  • Small contained type 1 defects may be managed with cement, screws or morselised graft.
  • Large uncontained type 2B and type 3 defects are commonly treated with structural support, cones or sleeves plus stems.
Clinical Implication: Use AORI as a treatment framework, not as a memorised list.
Limitation: Review-level evidence; long-term comparative data remain limited.
Source: Mancuso et al., Acta Biomed, 2017. PMID 28657571

Mechanisms and treatment options

Review
Key Findings:
  • Bone loss mechanisms include loosening, wear osteolysis, infection, fracture and extraction damage.
  • Modern options include cement, graft, augments, cones, sleeves and segmental reconstruction.
  • Treatment must be individualised to defect type, fixation requirement and patient factors.
Clinical Implication: The topic should teach mechanism-specific reconstruction rather than an implant shopping list.
Limitation: Narrative synthesis.
Source: Mechanisms of bone loss in revision TKA, 2023. PMID 37405274

Zonal fixation concept

Concept review
Key Findings:
  • Revision TKA fixation can be conceptualised in epiphyseal, metaphyseal and diaphyseal zones.
  • Durable reconstruction often requires fixation in more than one zone.
  • Metaphyseal fixation is especially important when the joint-adjacent platform is compromised.
Clinical Implication: Plan fixation zones before choosing constraint.
Limitation: Conceptual framework rather than randomised evidence.
Source: Morgan-Jones et al., Bone and Joint Journal, 2015. PMID 25628273

Metaphyseal fixation emphasis

Review
Key Findings:
  • Metaphyseal fixation is a key determinant of modern revision TKA stability.
  • Cones and sleeves are designed to improve metaphyseal support and load transfer.
  • Stem fixation alone may not solve a deficient metaphyseal platform.
Clinical Implication: A long stem is not a complete solution if the metaphysis remains unsupported.
Limitation: Review-level evidence.
Source: Zonal Fixation in Revision TKA, 2021. PMID 34507366

Cones versus sleeves

Systematic review
Key Findings:
  • Both metaphyseal cones and sleeves are used for major bone loss in revision TKA.
  • Published studies report generally favourable short- to mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes.
  • Comparisons are limited by retrospective designs, implant heterogeneity and variable defect severity.
Clinical Implication: Cones and sleeves are both valid; selection should follow defect shape, implant system, fixation needs and surgeon familiarity.
Limitation: Mostly non-randomised short- to mid-term data.
Source: Zanirato et al., Musculoskeletal Surgery, 2020. PMID 30879231

Sleeve outcomes

Clinical cohort
Key Findings:
  • Metaphyseal sleeves were used for bone loss in complex primary and revision knee arthroplasty.
  • The study reported clinical experience and outcome after 43 cases.
  • The technique depends on stable metaphyseal preparation and implant-linked fixation.
Clinical Implication: Sleeves can be effective, but preparation and system compatibility are central.
Limitation: Single cohort experience with limited numbers.
Source: Pour et al., Arthroplasty, 2020. PMID 32556384

Stem fixation

Systematic reviews
Key Findings:
  • Cemented, cementless and hybrid stem fixation remain debated.
  • Stem choice depends on bone quality, canal geometry, fixation philosophy, infection setting and need for future extraction.
  • The literature does not support a simplistic one-stem strategy for all revisions.
Clinical Implication: Teach stem fixation as a decision with tradeoffs rather than a universal rule.
Limitation: Heterogeneous studies, implant systems and revision indications.
Source: Cemented versus cementless stem fixation systematic review, 2023. PMID 37998836; Stem fixation systematic review, 2025. PMID 39790177

Rotating hinge revision

Reviews
Key Findings:
  • Rotating hinge implants are used for complex revision with severe instability, bone loss or ligament deficiency.
  • Higher constraint increases fixation demands.
  • Constraint choice should follow corrected bone loss, gap balance and residual ligament competence.
Clinical Implication: A hinge is appropriate for global instability, but it should not compensate for missed infection or poor fixation.
Limitation: Evidence is mainly review and cohort level.
Source: Rotating hinge revision TKA review, 2018. PMID 29628680; ligament balancing and constraint review, 2021. PMID 34507365

Clinical Scenarios

Use these scenarios to practise clinical reasoning and management decisions

CLINICAL SCENARIOChallenging

Loose painful TKA with tibial osteolysis

CLINICAL PROMPT

"A 72-year-old patient has start-up pain, tibial component migration and a large medial tibial defect on radiographs."

PRACTICAL APPROACH
I would first exclude infection with blood tests and aspiration when indicated, review prior implants and obtain full-length alignment imaging. At revision I would remove the component preserving bone, debride membrane, classify the final tibial defect after explant, then reconstruct the platform. A small contained defect may accept cement with screws, but a large uncontained medial tibial defect usually needs metal augment or metaphyseal cone/sleeve plus stem. I would trial alignment, gaps and ligament competence before selecting PS, CCK or hinge constraint.
KEY CLINICAL POINTS
Exclude infection before aseptic revision.
Classify final defect after explant.
Large uncontained tibial loss needs structural support.
Constraint follows trial stability.
COMMON PITFALLS
✗Using cement alone for a major uncontained defect.
✗Choosing hinge before reconstructing the platform.
✗Ignoring stem offset and tray rotation.
CLINICAL SCENARIOCritical

AORI type 3 femoral bone loss

CLINICAL PROMPT

"During revision TKA the femoral component is removed and both condyles are deficient with poor metaphyseal support."

PRACTICAL APPROACH
This is severe femoral metaphyseal bone loss. I would assess collateral attachments, extensor mechanism, infection status and whether the diaphysis can accept a stem. If reconstructable, I would restore the distal femoral platform with metaphyseal cone or sleeve, distal and posterior augments as required, and a stem extension. I would restore the joint line and posterior offset, then trial. If collateral competence is inadequate despite reconstruction, I would use CCK or rotating hinge. If host bone and soft tissues are not reconstructable, I would consider segmental distal femoral replacement.
KEY CLINICAL POINTS
Define reconstructability.
Restore joint line and posterior offset.
Use metaphyseal support plus stem.
Escalate to hinge or segmental replacement only when required.
COMMON PITFALLS
✗Ignoring posterior offset.
✗Assuming all AORI type 3 defects need endoprosthesis.
✗Forcing a sleeve into malrotation.
CLINICAL SCENARIOChallenging

Well-fixed sleeve requiring re-revision

CLINICAL PROMPT

"A previous revision knee has a well-fixed tibial sleeve but now requires re-revision for instability."

PRACTICAL APPROACH
I would review infection status, implant system, fixation, bone loss and component position. A well-fixed sleeve can be difficult to remove and removal may sacrifice host bone. If the sleeve is well fixed, well positioned and compatible with the revision strategy, retention may be considered depending on the failure mechanism. If removal is required, I would plan system-specific extraction with thin osteotomes, burrs or controlled techniques, prepare for bone loss escalation and have cones, sleeves, augments, stems and fracture fixation available.
KEY CLINICAL POINTS
Well-fixed sleeves are difficult to remove.
Do not remove stable fixation unnecessarily.
Plan extraction tools and backup reconstruction.
Expect bone loss escalation.
COMMON PITFALLS
✗Treating sleeve removal as routine.
✗Not having backup cones or segmental options.
✗Missing infection as the cause of failure.

Revision TKA Bone Loss: Key Takeaways

Clinical summary

First principles

  • •Exclude infection.
  • •Map bone loss after explant.
  • •Rebuild the platform before choosing constraint.

AORI

  • •Type 1: small contained defects.
  • •Type 2A: one condyle or plateau deficient.
  • •Type 2B: both condyles or plateaus deficient.
  • •Type 3: major metaphyseal deficiency.

Reconstruction

  • •Small contained: cement, screws or selected graft.
  • •Segmental: metal augment.
  • •Severe metaphyseal: cone or sleeve plus stem.
  • •Non-reconstructable: hinge or endoprosthetic solution.

Operative sequence

  • •Expose safely.
  • •Remove implants preserving bone.
  • •Classify final defect.
  • •Build tibial and femoral support.
  • •Trial gaps, joint line, rotation and constraint.
  • •Fix final construct.

Common failures

  • •Underestimated bone loss.
  • •Missed infection.
  • •Cement-only reconstruction of uncontained loss.
  • •Overconstraint with weak fixation.
  • •Poor joint-line or posterior-offset restoration.
Study Focus
Estimated read96 min

Decision sections

Related Topics

TKA Balancing, Gaps and Instability

Adult Hip Dysplasia

Ankle Arthritis

Aseptic Loosening in Total Hip Arthroplasty