Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Mar;470(3):735-42. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2159-5.

Aseptic failure: how does the Compress(®) implant compare to cemented stems?

Pedtke AC, Wustrack RL, Fang AS, Grimer RJ, O'Donnell RJ.

Source

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94115-1939, USA.

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.