[A new method for prosthetisation of vascular patients with lower limb amputation: initial experiences with osseointegration technique]

The bone anchored prostheses for amputees - Historical development, current status, and future aspects

In the past 50 years, bone anchored prostheses have evolved from a concept for experimental treatment to a rapidly developing area in orthopedics and traumatology. Up to date, there are dozens of centers in the world providing osseointegration amputation reconstructions and more than a thousand patients using the bone anchored prostheses. Compared with conventional socket prostheses, the bone anchored prosthesis by osseointegration avoids the debilitating problems related with soft tissues. It also provides physiological weight bearing, improved range of motion, and sensory feedback, all of which contribute to the improvement on quality of life for amputees. The present article briefly reviews the historical development of osseointegration surgery for amputation reconstruction and the current challenges. The implant design characters and surgical techniques of the two types of implants; the screw-type implant (presented by the OPRA system), and the press-fit implants (presented by EEP and OPL systems) are described. The major complications, infections and mechanical failures, are discussed in detail based on the latest evidence. Future aspects and experimental trials aiming to overcome the current challenges are presented.

Complications of bone-anchored prostheses for individuals with an extremity amputation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to provide an overview of device-related complications occurring in individuals with an upper or lower extremity amputation treated with a screw, press-fit or other type of bone-anchored implant as well as interventions related to these complications.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science databases. The included studies reported on device-related complications and interventions occurring in individuals with bone-anchored prostheses. The outcomes evaluated were death, infection, bone/device breakage, implant loosening, soft tissue complications, systemic events, antibiotic and surgical treatment. Subgroup analyses were performed for the following groups: a) implant type (screw, press-fit and other types of implants) and b) level of amputation (transfemoral, transtibial and upper extremity amputation).

RESULTS

Of 309 studies, 12 cohort studies were eligible for inclusion, all of which had methodological shortcomings and 12 studies were excluded due to complete overlap of patient data. Implant infection were rare in certain transfemoral implants (screw: 2-11%, press-fit: 0-3%, Compress: 0%) but common in transtibial implants (29%). The same was observed for implant loosening, in transfemoral (screw: 6%, press-fit: 0-3%, Compress: 0%), transtibial implants (29%) as well as for upper extremity implants (13-23%). Intramedullary device breakage were rare in transfemoral implants (screw: 0%, press-fit: 1%, Compress: unknown) but frequent in individuals with transradial implants (27%) and absent in transtibial implants. Soft tissue infections and complications were common and underreported in most articles.

CONCLUSIONS

Major complications (e.g. implant infection, implant loosening and intramedullary device breakage) are rare in transfemoral bone-anchored prosthesis and seem to occur less frequently in individuals with press-fit implants. Minor complications, such as soft tissue infections and complications, are common but are substantially influenced by the learning curve, implant design and surgical technique. Data for patients treated with a transtibial, upper extremity or Compress implant are underreported, precluding definitive conclusions. There is a need for either an international database to report on or a standard core set of complications as well as the need to follow classification systems that result in unequivocal data.

Comparison of bone-anchored prostheses and socket prostheses for patients with a lower extremity amputation: a systematic review

PURPOSE

This study aimed to provide an overview of a) the used measurement instruments in studies evaluating effects on quality of life (QoL), function, activity and participation level in patients with a lower extremity amputation using bone-anchored prostheses compared to socket prostheses and b) the effects themselves.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science. Included studies compared QoL, function, activity and/or participation level in patients with bone-anchored or socket prostheses. A best-evidence synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

Out of 226 studies, five cohort and two cross-sectional studies were eligible for inclusion, all had methodological shortcomings. These studies used 10 different measurement instruments and two separate questions to assess outcome. Bone-anchored prostheses were associated with better condition-specific QoL and better outcomes on several of the physical QoL subscales, outcomes on the physical bodily pain subscale were inconclusive. Outcomes on function and activity level increased, no change was found at participation level. The level of evidence was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for a standard set of instruments. There was limited evidence that bone-anchored prostheses resulted in higher QoL, function and activity levels than socket prostheses, in patients with socket-related problems. Implications for Rehabilitation Use of bone-anchored prostheses in combination with intensive outpatient rehabilitation may improve QoL, function and activity level compared with socket prosthesis use in patients with a transfemoral amputation and socket-related problems. All clinicians and researchers involved with bone-anchored prostheses should use and publish data on QoL, function, activity and participation level. There needs to be an agreement on a standard set of instruments so that interventions for patients with a lower extremity amputation are assessed consistently.