How to cite item

Anti-rotation pins for the compress implant do not increase risk of mechanical failure or impair osseointegration

  
@article{AOJ5283,
	author = {Sean T. Campbell and Robert J. Steffner and Andrea Finlay and David G. Mohler and Raffi S. Avedian},
	title = {Anti-rotation pins for the compress implant do not increase risk of  mechanical failure or impair osseointegration},
	journal = {Annals of Joint},
	volume = {4},
	number = {0},
	year = {2019},
	keywords = {},
	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.},
	issn = {2415-6809},	url = {https://aoj.amegroups.org/article/view/5283}
}