S. Campbell, R. Steffner, Andrea K. Finlay, D. Mohler, R. Avedian
{"title":"Anti-rotation pins for the compress implant do not increase risk of mechanical failure or impair osseointegration","authors":"S. Campbell, R. Steffner, Andrea K. Finlay, D. Mohler, R. Avedian","doi":"10.21037/AOJ.2019.08.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The use of compliant fixation for endoprosthetic implants is gaining popularity. Previous work has shown that anti-rotation pins improve rotational stability at the bone-implant interface, but there is concern that these pins lead to increased risk of mechanical failure. We asked: (I) are anti-rotation pins used with the Compress implant associated with mechanical failure? (II) Are anti-rotation pins associated with less effective osseointegration? Methods: We performed retrospective review of cases using a Compress implant from 2004–2016. Mechanical failure rates and bone growth at the bone-implant interface were compared between pin and no-pin cohorts. Regression models were used to examine patient and surgical factors associated with mechanical failure. \n Results: Anti-rotation pins were not associated with mechanical failure (P=1.0, odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 0.12–15.40). Anti-rotation pins were not associated with impaired osseointegration at any time point (P=1.0 at 3–6 months, P=0.33 at 6-9 months, P=0.34 at 9–12 months, P=0.40 at 12–24 months, P=0.28 at 24–48 months, P=1.0 at >48 months). No patient or surgical variables were predictors of mechanical failure. \n Conclusions: Anti-rotation pins were not associated with mechanical failure or impaired osseointegration.","PeriodicalId":44459,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Joint","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Joint","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/AOJ.2019.08.02","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The use of compliant fixation for endoprosthetic implants is gaining popularity. Previous work has shown that anti-rotation pins improve rotational stability at the bone-implant interface, but there is concern that these pins lead to increased risk of mechanical failure. We asked: (I) are anti-rotation pins used with the Compress implant associated with mechanical failure? (II) Are anti-rotation pins associated with less effective osseointegration? Methods: We performed retrospective review of cases using a Compress implant from 2004–2016. Mechanical failure rates and bone growth at the bone-implant interface were compared between pin and no-pin cohorts. Regression models were used to examine patient and surgical factors associated with mechanical failure.
Results: Anti-rotation pins were not associated with mechanical failure (P=1.0, odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 0.12–15.40). Anti-rotation pins were not associated with impaired osseointegration at any time point (P=1.0 at 3–6 months, P=0.33 at 6-9 months, P=0.34 at 9–12 months, P=0.40 at 12–24 months, P=0.28 at 24–48 months, P=1.0 at >48 months). No patient or surgical variables were predictors of mechanical failure.
Conclusions: Anti-rotation pins were not associated with mechanical failure or impaired osseointegration.