Compressive osseointegration for endoprosthetic reconstruction

This review summarizes the biomechanical concepts, clinical outcomes and limitations of compressive osseointegration fixation for endoprosthetic reconstruction. Compressive osseointe - gration establishes stable fixation and integration through a novel mechanism; a Belleville washer system within the spindle applies 400-800 PSI force at the boneimplant interface. Compressive osseointegration can be used whenever standard endoprosthetic reconstruction is indicated. However, its mode of fixation allows for a shorter spindle that is less limited by the length of remaining cortical bone. Most often compressive osseointegration is used in the distal femur, proximal femur, proximal tibia, and humerus but these devices have been customized for use in less traditional locations. Aseptic mechanical failure occurs earlier than with standard endoprosthetic reconstruction, most often within the first two years. Compressive osseointegration has repeatedly been proven to be non-inferior to standard endoprosthetic reconstruction in terms of aseptic mechanical failure. No demographic, device specific, oncologic variables have been found to be associated with increased risk of aseptic mechanical failure. While multiple radiographic parameters are used to assess for aseptic mechanical failure, no suitable method of evaluation exists. The underlying pathology associated with aseptic mechanical failure demonstrates avascular bone necrosis. This is in comparison to the bone hypertrophy and ingrowth at the boneprosthetic interface that seals the endosteal canal, preventing aseptic loosening.

Long-term follow-up of custom cross-pin fixation of 56 tumour endoprosthesis stems

Aims Aseptic loosening is a major cause of failure in cemented endoprosthetic reconstructions. This paper presents the long-term outcomes of a custom-designed cross-pin fixation construct designed to minimize rotational stress and subsequent aseptic loosening in selected patients. The paper will also examine the long-term survivorship and modes of failure when using this technique. Patients and Methods A review of 658 consecutive, prospectively collected cemented endoprosthetic reconstructions for oncological diagnoses at a single centre between 1980 and 2017 was performed. A total of 51 patients were identified with 56 endoprosthetic implants with cross-pin fixation, 21 of which were implanted following primary resection of tumour. Locations included distal femoral (n = 36), proximal femoral (n = 7), intercalary (n = 6), proximal humeral (n = 3), proximal tibial (n = 3), and distal humeral (n = 1). Results The median follow-up was 132 months (interquartile range (IQR) 44 to 189). In all, 20 stems required revision: eight for infection, five for structural failure, five for aseptic loosening, and two for tumour progression. Mechanical survivorship at five, ten, and 15 years was 84%, 78%, and 78%, respectively. Mechanical failure rate varied by location, with no mechanical failures of proximal femoral constructs and distal femoral survivorship of 82%, 77%, and 77% at five, ten, and 15 years. The survivorship of primary constructs at five years was 74%, with no failure after 40 months, while the survivorship for revision constructs was 89%, 80%, and 80% at five, ten, and 15 years. Conclusion The rate of mechanical survivorship in our series is similar to those reported for other methods of reconstruction for short diaphyseal segments, such as compressive osseointegration. The mechanical failure rate differed by location, while there was no substantial difference in long-term survival between primary and revision reconstructions. Overall, custom cross-pin fixation is a viable option for endoprosthetic reconstruction of short metaphyseal segments with an acceptable rate of mechanical failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:724–731.