Aseptic Failure: How Does the Compress® Implant Compare to Cemented Stems?

Pedtke, Andrew; Wustrack, Rosanna; Fang, Andrew; Grimer, R. J.; O’Donnell, Richard J.

doi:10.1007/s11999-011-2159-5

Cited by 57 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We believe these data support the potential long-term durability of an osteointegrated CPS implant. Aseptic mechanical failures occurred early, within 1 year of revision surgery, a finding comparable to other primary CPS implant studies [10,13,19,24]. Few publications have described the outcomes of revision distal femoral prostheses (Table 2).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…At a median of 90 months (range, 24-181 months), the median MSTS score of the 21 patients who retained their implant was 27 (range, [24][25][26][27][28][29][30]). An active 90°arc of motion of the affected knee was maintained in 17 (81%) patients.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The CPS implant has a published survival rate of as high as 89% at 5 years [19] and 80% at 10 years [13] when used for primary oncologic reconstruction [24]. In short-term comparison studies, it was shown to have equivalent or higher survival than cemented [3,24] and press-fit [10] stemmed implants for primary oncologic reconstruction [3,24]. Given the versatility of the CPS implant, we began using it for revision of failed distal femoral prostheses, particularly when the residual femoral bone segment was very short, precluding use of a stemmed implant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three patients required secondary operations for cortical insufficiency proximal to the anchor plug in bone not spanned by the CPS implant and unrelated to the prosthesis. Median MSTS score was 27 (range, [24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. Conclusions Revision distal femoral replacement arthroplasty after a failed megaprosthesis is often difficult as a result of a lack of adequate bone.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Revision Distal Femoral Arthroplasty With the Compress® Prosthesis Has a Low Rate of Mechanical Failure at 10 Years

Zimel

Farfalli

Zindman

et al. 2016

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Patients with failed distal femoral megaprostheses often have bone loss that limits reconstructive options and contributes to the high failure rate of revision surgery. The Compress 1 Compliant Pre-stress (CPS) implant can reconstruct the femur even when there is little remaining bone. It differs from traditional stemmed prostheses because it requires only 4 to 8 cm of residual bone for fixation. Given the poor long-term results of stemmed revision constructs, we sought to determine the failure rate and functional outcomes of the CPS implant in revision surgery. Questions/purposes (1) What is the cumulative incidence of mechanical and other types of implant failure when used to revise failed distal femoral arthroplasties placed after oncologic resection? (2) What complications are characteristic of this prosthesis? (3) What function do patients achieve after receiving this prosthesis? Methods We retrospectively reviewed 27 patients who experienced failure of a distal femoral prosthesis and were revised to a CPS implant from April 2000 to February 2013. Indications for use included a minimum 2.5 mm cortical thickness of the remaining proximal femur, no prior radiation, life expectancy [10 years, and compliance with protected weightbearing for 3 months. The cumulative incidence of failure was calculated for both mechanical (loss of compression between the implant anchor plug and spindle) and other failure modes using a competing risk analysis. Failure was defined as removal of the CPS implant. Followup was a minimum of 2 years or until implant removal. Median followup for patients with [CI], 4%-33%) at both 5 and 10 years. These failures occurred early at a median of 5 months. The cumulative incidence of other failures was 18% (95% CI, 7%-45%) at 5 and 10 years, all of which were deep infection. Three patients required secondary operations for cortical insufficiency proximal to the anchor plug in bone not spanned by the CPS implant and unrelated to the prosthesis. Median MSTS score was 27 (range, 24-30). Conclusions Revision distal femoral replacement arthroplasty after a failed megaprosthesis is often difficult as a result of a lack of adequate bone. Reconstruction with the CPS implant has an 11% failure rate at 10 years. Our results are promising and demonstrate the durable fixation provided by the CPS implant. Further studies to compare the CPS prosthesis and other reconstruction options with respect to survival and functional outcomes are warranted. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Revision Distal Femoral Arthroplasty With the Compress® Prosthesis Has a Low Rate of Mechanical Failure at 10 Years

Zimel

Farfalli

Zindman

et al. 2016

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This device has short-and intermediate-term survivorship that is at least equivalent if not superior to stemmed implants, but there is concern that rotational forces at the bone-prosthesis interface can lead to loosening and failure of the implant (Fig. 2) [3,8,17]. A strategy to overcome this problem is to insert antirotation pins through the spindle into the host bone (Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antirotation Pins Improve Stability of the Compress Limb Salvage Implant: A Biomechanical Study

Avedian

Chen

Lindsey

et al. 2014

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Limb salvage implants that rely on compliant compression osseointegration to achieve bone fixation may achieve longer survivorship rates compared with traditional cemented or press-fit stemmed implants; however, failures resulting from rotational instability have been reported. The effect of using antirotation pins on the rotational stability of the fixation has not been well studied. Questions/purposes We asked the following question: When tested in a cadaver model, does the use of antirotation pins increase the torque required to cause implant failure or rotation?Methods Thirty-two cadaver femurs were divided into four groups of eight femurs. We compared the torque to failure among groups containing zero, one, two, three, and four pins using a servohydraulic testing device. Conclusions It appears that the use of antirotation pins improves rotational stability of the compliant compression endoprosthesis. Although these findings need to be verified in a clinical study, the addition of antirotation pins may improve osteointegration and we have changed our practice to use a minimum of three antirotation pins when implanting this device. Clinical Relevance Improvements in implant technology and surgical techniques may lead to improved clinical outcomes and patient quality of life. Addition of antirotation pins appears to improve implant stability and may decrease the need for revision surgery.

show abstract

Long‐term outcomes of cement in cement technique for revision endoprosthesis surgery

Bernthal

Hegde

Zoller

et al. 2017

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Aseptic Failure: How Does the Compress® Implant Compare to Cemented Stems?

Cited by 57 publications

References 21 publications

Revision Distal Femoral Arthroplasty With the Compress® Prosthesis Has a Low Rate of Mechanical Failure at 10 Years

Revision Distal Femoral Arthroplasty With the Compress® Prosthesis Has a Low Rate of Mechanical Failure at 10 Years

Antirotation Pins Improve Stability of the Compress Limb Salvage Implant: A Biomechanical Study

Long‐term outcomes of cement in cement technique for revision endoprosthesis surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About