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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tyler, Wakenda K., Healey, John H., Morris, Carol D., Boland, Patrick J., O’Donnell, Richard J.
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