Aseptic Failure: How Does the Compress® Implant Compare to Cemented Stems?
Andrew C. Pedtke MD, Rosanna L. Wustrack MD, Andrew S. Fang MD, Robert J. Grimer FRCS, Richard J. O’Donnell MD
Symposium: 2010 Musculoskeletal Tumor Society
Volume 470,
Issue
3
/
March ,
2011
Abstract on SpringerLink | 
Full article HTML | 
Full article PDF
Download Citation
Abstract
Background
Failure of endoprosthetic reconstruction with conventional stems due to aseptic loosening remains a challenge for maintenance of limb integrity and function. The Compress® implant (Biomet Inc, Warsaw, IN, USA) attempts to avoid aseptic failure by means of a unique technologic innovation. Though the existing literature suggests survivorship of Compress® and stemmed implants is similar in the short term, studies are limited by population size and followup duration.
Questions/purposes
We therefore compared (1) the rate of aseptic failure between Compress® and cemented intramedullary stems and (2) evaluated the overall intermediate-term implant survivorship.
Methods
We reviewed 26 patients with Compress® implants and 26 matched patients with cemented intramedullary stems. The patients were operated on over a 3-year period. Analysis focused on factors related to implant survival, including age, sex, diagnosis, infection, aseptic loosening, local recurrence, and fracture. Minimum followup was 0.32 years (average, 6.2 years; range, 0.32–9.2 years).
Results
Aseptic failure occurred in one (3.8%) patient with a Compress® implant and three (11.5%) patients with cemented intramedullary stems. The 5-year implant survival rate was 83.5% in the Compress® group and 66.6% in the cemented intramedullary stem group.
Conclusions
The Compress® implant continues to be a reliable option for distal femoral limb salvage surgery. Data regarding aseptic failure is encouraging, with equivalent survivorship against cemented endoprosthetic replacement at intermediate-term followup.
Level of Evidence
Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Go to Issue Contents