AbstractPurposeThe fixation of revision total knee arthroplasties (rTKA) tends to be difficult, leading to a reduction in implant survival. One option for achieving a more stable anchorage is to use metaphyseal cones and sleeves. The objective of the present paper is to provide a current comparative meta‐analysis on survival and clinical results of cones vs. sleeves, with a differentiation between the short‐ and long‐term outcome.MethodsA search of the literature was conducted systematically to include original papers from 2010 to June 2021. The following parameters were taken into account: revision for aseptic loosening, revision for any reason, periprosthetic joint infections (PJI), KSS as well as KSFS. Studies with a mean follow‐up of at least 60 months were defined to be long‐term follow‐up studies (LT). All other studies were included in the short‐term (ST) study analysis. A pooled incidence was used as a summary statistic using a random intercept logistic regression model.ResultsThe present meta‐analysis included 43 publications with 3008 rTKA. Of these, 23 publications with 1911 cases were allocated to the sleeve group (SG) and 20 papers with 1097 cases to the cone group (CG). CG showed overall numerically higher complication rates in short‐ and long‐term follow‐up, compared with SG. Aseptic loosening occurred at a rate of 0.4% in SG (LT) and 4.1% in CG (LT) (p = 0.09). Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) was more frequent in the cone group (7% in ST and 11.7% in LT) than in the sleeve group (3.4% in ST and 4.9% in LT, p = 0.02 both). The total revision rate was 5.5% in SG (LT) and 14.4% in CG (LT) (p = 0.12). The clinical scores were also comparable between the two groups. Hinged prothesis were used more frequent in the cone group (ST p < 0.001; LT p = 0.10), whereas CC type protheses were used more frequently in the sleeve group (ST p < 0.001; LT p < 0.11).ConclusionsThis meta‐analysis takes into account the longest follow‐up periods covered to date. Both cones and sleeves represent a reliable fixation method in the case of severe bone loss in rTKA, although the higher rate of PJI after cone fixation remains a source of concern. A metaphyseal fixation of hinged implants should be taken into account.Level of evidenceII (meta‐analysis).