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

Area of Science:

• Orthopedic Surgery
• Biomaterials Engineering
• Limb Reconstruction

Background:

• Aseptic loosening of conventional stems is a significant challenge in endoprosthetic reconstruction.
• The Compress(®) implant offers a novel technological approach to mitigate aseptic failure.
• Existing literature on Compress(®) implant survivorship is limited by small sample sizes and short follow-up durations.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the rate of aseptic failure between Compress(®) implants and cemented intramedullary stems.
• To evaluate the intermediate-term implant survivorship of the Compress(®) implant.

Main Methods:

• Retrospective review of 26 patients with Compress(®) implants and 26 matched patients with cemented intramedullary stems.
• Analysis included factors such as age, sex, diagnosis, infection, aseptic loosening, local recurrence, and fracture.
• Minimum follow-up of 0.32 years, with an average of 6.2 years.

Main Results:

• Aseptic failure occurred in 3.8% of Compress(®) implant patients versus 11.5% of cemented stem patients.
• The 5-year implant survival rate was 83.5% for the Compress(®) group and 66.6% for the cemented stem group.
• These findings suggest a reduced rate of aseptic failure with the Compress(®) implant.

Conclusions:

• The Compress(®) implant is a reliable option for distal femoral limb salvage surgery.
• The implant demonstrates encouraging data regarding aseptic failure.
• Compress(®) implants show equivalent survivorship to cemented endoprosthetic replacement at intermediate-term follow-up.