Cargando…
Compress(®) Periprosthetic Fractures: Interface Stability and Ease of Revision
Periprosthetic fractures after massive endoprosthetic reconstructions pose a reconstructive challenge and jeopardize limb preservation. Compressive osseointegration technology offers the promise of relative ease of prosthetic revision, since fixation is achieved by means of a short intramedullary de...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer-Verlag
2009
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2758988/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19565305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0946-z |
_version_ | 1782172631778197504 |
---|---|
author | Tyler, Wakenda K. Healey, John H. Morris, Carol D. Boland, Patrick J. O’Donnell, Richard J. |
author_facet | Tyler, Wakenda K. Healey, John H. Morris, Carol D. Boland, Patrick J. O’Donnell, Richard J. |
author_sort | Tyler, Wakenda K. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Periprosthetic fractures after massive endoprosthetic reconstructions pose a reconstructive challenge and jeopardize limb preservation. Compressive osseointegration technology offers the promise of relative ease of prosthetic revision, since fixation is achieved by means of a short intramedullary device. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 221 patients who had Compress(®) devices implanted in two centers between December, 1996 and December, 2008. The mean followup was 50 months (range, 1–123 months). Six patients (2.7%) sustained periprosthetic fractures and eight (3.6%) had nonperiprosthetic ipsilateral limb fractures occurring from 4 to 79 months postoperatively. All periprosthetic fractures occurred in patients with distal femoral implants (6/154, 3.9%). Surgery was performed in all six patients with periprosthetic femur fractures and for one with a nonperiprosthetic patellar fracture. The osseointegrated interface was radiographically stable in all 14 cases. All six patients with periprosthetic fracture underwent limb salvage procedures. Five patients had prosthetic revision; one patient who had internal fixation of the fracture ultimately underwent amputation for persistent infection. Periprosthetic fractures involving Compress(®) fixation occur infrequently and most can be treated successfully with further surgery. When implant revision is needed, the bone preserved by virtue of using a shorter intramedullary Compress(®) device as compared to conventional stems, allows for less complex surgery, making limb preservation more likely. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2758988 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2009 |
publisher | Springer-Verlag |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-27589882009-10-09 Compress(®) Periprosthetic Fractures: Interface Stability and Ease of Revision Tyler, Wakenda K. Healey, John H. Morris, Carol D. Boland, Patrick J. O’Donnell, Richard J. Clin Orthop Relat Res Symposium: Selected Papers Presented at the 2008 Meeting of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Periprosthetic fractures after massive endoprosthetic reconstructions pose a reconstructive challenge and jeopardize limb preservation. Compressive osseointegration technology offers the promise of relative ease of prosthetic revision, since fixation is achieved by means of a short intramedullary device. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 221 patients who had Compress(®) devices implanted in two centers between December, 1996 and December, 2008. The mean followup was 50 months (range, 1–123 months). Six patients (2.7%) sustained periprosthetic fractures and eight (3.6%) had nonperiprosthetic ipsilateral limb fractures occurring from 4 to 79 months postoperatively. All periprosthetic fractures occurred in patients with distal femoral implants (6/154, 3.9%). Surgery was performed in all six patients with periprosthetic femur fractures and for one with a nonperiprosthetic patellar fracture. The osseointegrated interface was radiographically stable in all 14 cases. All six patients with periprosthetic fracture underwent limb salvage procedures. Five patients had prosthetic revision; one patient who had internal fixation of the fracture ultimately underwent amputation for persistent infection. Periprosthetic fractures involving Compress(®) fixation occur infrequently and most can be treated successfully with further surgery. When implant revision is needed, the bone preserved by virtue of using a shorter intramedullary Compress(®) device as compared to conventional stems, allows for less complex surgery, making limb preservation more likely. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. Springer-Verlag 2009-06-30 2009-11 /pmc/articles/PMC2758988/ /pubmed/19565305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0946-z Text en © The Author(s) 2009 |
spellingShingle | Symposium: Selected Papers Presented at the 2008 Meeting of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Tyler, Wakenda K. Healey, John H. Morris, Carol D. Boland, Patrick J. O’Donnell, Richard J. Compress(®) Periprosthetic Fractures: Interface Stability and Ease of Revision |
title | Compress(®) Periprosthetic Fractures: Interface Stability and Ease of Revision |
title_full | Compress(®) Periprosthetic Fractures: Interface Stability and Ease of Revision |
title_fullStr | Compress(®) Periprosthetic Fractures: Interface Stability and Ease of Revision |
title_full_unstemmed | Compress(®) Periprosthetic Fractures: Interface Stability and Ease of Revision |
title_short | Compress(®) Periprosthetic Fractures: Interface Stability and Ease of Revision |
title_sort | compress(®) periprosthetic fractures: interface stability and ease of revision |
topic | Symposium: Selected Papers Presented at the 2008 Meeting of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2758988/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19565305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0946-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tylerwakendak compressperiprostheticfracturesinterfacestabilityandeaseofrevision AT healeyjohnh compressperiprostheticfracturesinterfacestabilityandeaseofrevision AT morriscarold compressperiprostheticfracturesinterfacestabilityandeaseofrevision AT bolandpatrickj compressperiprostheticfracturesinterfacestabilityandeaseofrevision AT odonnellrichardj compressperiprostheticfracturesinterfacestabilityandeaseofrevision |