Skip to main content
Log in

Compressive osseointegration promotes viable bone at the endoprosthetic interface: retrieval study of Compress® implants

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Compress® implant (Biomet, Warsaw, IN) is an innovative device developed to enable massive endoprosthetic fixation through the application of compressive forces at the bone-implant interface. This design provides immediate, stable anchorage and helps to avoid the long-term complication of aseptic loosening secondary to stress shielding and particle-induced osteolysis seen in conventional, stemmed megaprostheses. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the in vivo biological effects of the high compressive forces attained. Twelve consecutive Compress® patients undergoing revision surgery for infection, periprosthetic fracture, or local tumour recurrence were reviewed in order to exclude the possibility of osteonecrosis at the prosthetic interface. Compressive forces ranged from 400–800 lb. Duration of implantation averaged 3.3 years (range 0.4–12.2 years). Two patients with infection demonstrated loosening at the bone-prosthetic interface; otherwise, there was no radiographic evidence of prosthetic failure in any of the patients. No patient demonstrated histological evidence of osteonecrosis. In fact, new woven bone and other findings consistent with viable bone were noted in all of the retrieved specimens.

Résumé

La prothèse Compress® (Biomet, Warsaw, In) est une endo-prothèse massive, innovante, développée pour permettre une fixation avec des forces de compression au niveau des interfaces os-implant. Le dessin de l’implant permet une stabilité immédiate au niveau de l’ancrage et semble éviter des complications, à long terme, comme le descellement aseptique, secondaire à un stress shielding rencontré de façon habituelle dans les méga prothèses. Le but de cette étude est d’évaluer les effets biologiques in vivo de ces forces de compression. 11 prothèses consécutives de type Compress® ont été réalisées chez 11 patients, nécessitant une réintervention pour infection, pour fracture périprothétique ou pour récidive d’une tumeur locale. Les forces de compression ont été évaluées de 400 à 800 lb. Le temps d’implantation moyen a été de 2.5 ans (0.4 à 6.5 ans). Deux patients ont présenté un descellement infectieux à l’interface os-prothèse, il n’a pas été mis en évidence, sur le plan radiographique d’échecs de cet implant chez aucun des patients. Aucun patient n’a également montré de façon évidente des phénomènes d’ostéonécrose histologique et, l’analyse des prothèses explantées a montré qu’il existait au contact de celles-ci un os vivant.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Avedian R, Goldsby RE, Kramer MJ, O’Donnell RJ (2007) Effect of chemotherapy on initial compressive osseointegration of oncologic endoprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res, Epub March 15

  2. Bhangu AA, Kramer MJ, Grimer RJ, O’Donnell RJ (2006) Early distal femoral endoprosthetic survival: cemented stems versus the Compress® implant. Int Orthop 30:465–472

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bini SA, Johnston JO, Martin DL (2000) Compliant prestress fixation in tumor prostheses: interface retrieval data. Orthopedics 23(7):707–712

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Cristofolini L, Bini SA, Toni A (1998) In vitro testing of a novel limb salvage prosthesis for the distal femur. Clin Biomech 13:608–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lanyon LE, Hampson WGJ, Goodship AE, Shah JS (1975) Bone deformation recorded in vivo from strain gauges attached to the human tibial shaft. Acta Orthop Scand 46:256–268

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Mullender MG, Huiskes R (1995) Proposal for the regulatory mechanism of Wolff’s law. J Orthop Res 13(4):503–512

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Muschler GF, Levine MJ, Ihara K, Otis JC, Lane JM, Burstein AH, Healey JH (1995) A custom distal femoral prosthesis for reconstruction of large defects following wide excision for sarcoma: results and prognostic factors. Orthopedics 18(6):527–538

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Naudie DDR, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA, Rorabeck CH (2007) Wear and osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15(1):53–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Reilly DT, Burstein AH (1974) The mechanical properties of cortical bone. J Bone Jt Surg 56-A(5):1001–1022

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ries MD (2003) Complications in primary total hip arthroplasty: avoidance and management: wear. In: Ferlic DC (ed) Instructional course lectures, vol 52. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Rosemont, IL, pp 257–265

    Google Scholar 

  11. Uhthoff HK, Poitras P, Backman DS (2006) Internal plate fixation of fractures: short history and recent developments. J Orthop Sci 11:118–126

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ward WG Sr, Dorey F, Kelly C, Kabo JM, Wirganowicz PZ, Eckardt JJ (1999) Lessons from massive tumor endoprostheses: implications for future tumor and total joint endoprostheses. Semin Arthroplasty 10(3):124–132

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. J. O’Donnell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kramer, M.J., Tanner, B.J., Horvai, A.E. et al. Compressive osseointegration promotes viable bone at the endoprosthetic interface: retrieval study of Compress® implants. International Orthopaedics (SICO 32, 567–571 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0392-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0392-z

Keywords

Navigation