Purpose: Endoprosthetic reconstruction of the distal femur is the preferred approach for patients undergoing resection of bone sarcomas. The traditional How-medica Modular Resection System, using a press-fit stem (HMRS or Kotz prosthesis, Stryker Orthopaedics, Mahwah, New Jersey, USA) has shown good long-term clinical success, but has also been known to incur complications such as stem fracture. The Restoration stem, as a part of the new Global Modular Resection System (GMRS, Stryker Orthopaedics, Mahwah, NJ, USA), is currently proposed for this same application. This stem has a different geometry and provides the advantage of decreased risk of fracture of the component. The goal of this study was to compare the HMRS and Restoration press-fit stems in terms of initial mechanical stability.

Methods: Six matching pairs fresh frozen adult femora were obtained and prepared using a flexible canal reamer and fitted with either a Restoration or HMRS press-fit stem distally. All constructs were mechanically tested in axial compression, lateral bending, and torsion to obtain mechanical stiffness. Torque-to-failure was finally performed to determine the offset force required to clinically fail the specimen by either incurring damage to the femur, the stem, or the femur-stem interface.

Results: Restoration press-fit stems results were: axial stiffness (average=1871.1 N/mm, SD=431.2), lateral stiffness (average=508.0 N/mm, SD=179.6), and torsional stiffness (average=262.3 N/mm, SD=53.2). HMRS stems achieved comparable levels: axial stiffness (average=1867.9 N/mm, SD=392.0), lateral bending stiffness (average=468.5 N/mm, SD=115.3), and torsional stiffness (average=234.9 N/mm, SD=62.4). For torque-to-failure, the applied offset forces on Restoration (average=876.3 N, SD=449.6) and HMRS (aver-age=690.5 N, SD=142.0) stems were similar. There were no statistical differences in performance between the two stem types regarding axial compression (p=0.97), lateral bending (p=0.45), or torsional stiffnesses (p=0.07). Moreover, no differences were detected between the groups when tested in torque-to-failure (p=0.37). The mechanism of torsional failure for all specimens was “spinning” (i.e. surface sliding) at the femur-stem interface. No significant damage was detected to any bones or stem devices.

Conclusions: These results suggest that the Restoration and HMRS press-fit stems may be equivalent clinically in the immediate post-operative situation. Funding: Commerical funding Funding Parties: Stryker Orthopaedics