Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 1;36(7):e260-e264.
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000002320.

The Use of Carbon Fiber Implants for Impending or Existing Pathologic Fractures

Leah N Herzog  1 , Sophia A Traven, Zeke J Walton, Lee R Leddy
Affiliations

The Use of Carbon Fiber Implants for Impending or Existing Pathologic Fractures

Leah N Herzog et al. J Orthop Trauma. .

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the utility and complications of using carbon fiber implants (CFIs) compared with standard titanium alloy (TI) intramedullary implants for stabilization of impending or existing pathologic fractures.

Design: Retrospective comparison.

Patients/participants: Ninety-four patients undergoing intramedullary fixation of 100 impending or existing pathologic fractures between 2014-2019 were identified for inclusion.

Main outcome measurements: The primary outcome was postoperative complications. Other outcomes included implant type, pathology, indication, and adjuvant therapy.

Results: Fifty-three percent of cases used a CFI, whereas 47% of cases used a TI. There were no differences between groups with regard to anatomic location (P = 0.218), indication for surgery (P = 0.066), histology (P = 0.306), or postoperative adjuvant therapy (P = 0.308). Nineteen percent of cases incurred a postoperative complication in each group (P = 0.530), and no differences were noted with regard to complication type including implant failure (P = 0.442) and wound complications (P = 0.322). There was a cost saving of $400 with TI implants compared with CFI.

Conclusions: This is a high-risk population for postoperative complications after stabilization of pathologic fractures. Although there were no statistical differences in complications between CFI and TI, implant choice depends on patient characteristics and surgeon preference.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

L.R. Leddy has received funding from KCI. The remaining authors report no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Mirels H. Metastatic disease in long bones: a proposed scoring system for diagnosing impending pathologic fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;249:256–264.
    1. Piccioli A, Maccauro G, Spinelli MS, et al. Bone metastases of unknown origin: epidemiology and principles of management. J Orthopaed Tramatol. 2015;16:81–86.
    1. Hak DJ, Mauffrey C, Seligson D, et al. Use of carbon-fiber-reinforced composite implants in orthopedic surgery. Orthopedics. 2014;37:79–84.
    1. Choi W, Kim KJ, Lee SK, et al. Surgical treatment of pathological fractures occurring at the proximal femur. Yonsei Med J. 2015;56:460–465.
    1. Li CS, Vannabouathong C, Sprague S, et al. The use of carbon-fiber-reinforced (CFR) PEEK material in orthopedic implants: a systematic review. Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;8:33–45.

LinkOut - more resources