Safety concerns surrounding osseointegration are a significant barrier to replacing socket prosthesis as the standard of care following limb amputation. While implanted osseointegrated prostheses traditionally occur in two stages, a one-stage approach has emerged. Currently, there is no existing comparison of the outcomes of these different approaches. To address safety concerns, this study sought to determine whether a one-stage osseointegration procedure is associated with fewer adverse events than the two-staged approach. A comprehensive electronic search and quantitative data analysis from eligible studies were performed. Inclusion criteria were adults with a limb amputation managed with a one- or two-stage osseointegration procedure with follow-up reporting of complications.Aims
Methods
Transfemoral osseointegration (TFOI) for amputees has substantial literature proving superior quality of life and mobility versus a socketed prosthesis. Some amputees have hip arthritis that would be relieved by a total hip replacement (THR). No other group has reported performing a THR in association with TFOI (THR+TFOI). We report the outcomes of eight patients who had THR+TFOI, followed for an average 5.2 years. Our osseointegration registry was retrospectively reviewed to identify all patients who had TFOI and also had THR, performed at least two years prior. Six patients had TFOI then THR, one simultaneous, one THR then TFOI. All constructs were in continuity from hip to prosthetic limb. Outcomes were: complications prompting surgical intervention, and changes in subjective hip pain, K-level, daily prosthesis wear hours, Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (QTFA), and Short Form 36 (SF36). All patients had clinical follow-up, but one patient did not have complete mobility and quality of life survey data at both time periods.Introduction
Materials & Methods
This study reports on minimum 2 year follow up outcomes on functional and quality of life of patients after undergoing bilateral osseointegration in comparison to traditional socket prosthesis. This is a prospective pilot study of 35 patients, consisting of 30 males and 5 females, aged 22–66 (mean 36) years at surgery, with minimum two-year follow-up. Selection criteria were age over 18 years, bilateral amputees who had socket-related problems or were wheelchair-bound with short stumps and non-reconstructable limb pathology. Principle outcome measures included the Questionnaire for persons with a Trans-Femoral Amputation (Q-TFA), Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36), Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Timed Up and Go (TUG), and K-levels. Adverse events were recorded including infection, revision surgery, fractures, and implant failures.Introduction
Materials & Methods
Osseointegration has emerged as a promising alternative to rehabilitating with a traditional socket mounted prosthesis. Advantages have been reported to include improved functional mobility, better osseoperception, improved comfort, reduced pain, better biomechanical alignment and better gait, which all lead to a less restricted lifestyle and significantly improved quality of life. A major concern of the Osseointegrated approach lies in the risk of infections occurring from the permanent transcutaneous opening often referred to as the stoma. Several systematic reviews have indicated that the occurrence of minor infections can be quite common, serious complications are reported to be rare. In addition to commonly anticipated complications including fractures, surgical debridements or revisions, we have identified several significant events in which a patient may require to be readmitted and go through additional surgery. The objective of this study is to examine the rate of occurrence and reports on the best management practices of serious complications across a multi-centre review of more than 1000 osseointegration surgeries. A detailed analysis has been performed on all osseointegration surgeries performed by the Osseointegration Group of Australia and it's affiliates between since 2010. The majority of surgeries took place in Australia, the United States, the Middle East as well as in Europe. All events leading to a re-admission and subsequent re-operation have been identified through hospital operation records and pooled together for meta-analysis. Events identified include: revision of implants, periprosthetic fracture fixation, surgical debridement due to infections, neurectomies and soft- tissue refashioning.Introduction
Materials & Methods
Percutaneous EndoProsthetic Osseointegration for Limbs (PEPOL) facilitates improved quality of life (QOL) and objective mobility for most amputees discontent with their traditional socket prosthesis (TSP) experience. Some amputees desiring PEPOL have residual bone much shorter than the currently marketed press-fit implant lengths of 14–16 cm, potentially a risk for failure to integrate. We report on the techniques used, complications experienced, the management of those complications, and the overall mobility outcomes of seven patients who had femur distraction osteogenesis (DO) with a Freedom nail followed by PEPOL. Retrospective evaluation of a prospectively maintained database identified nine patients (5 females) who had transfemoral DO in preparation for PEPOL with two years of follow-up after PEPOL. Six patients had traumatic causes of amputation, one had perinatal complications, one was performed to manage necrotizing fasciitis and one was performed as a result of osteosarcoma.Introduction
Materials & Methods
Approximately 2,000 Skeletal transcutaneous osseointegration (STOI) procedures have been performed worldwide as of 2020, more than half of which have been performed by the Osseointegration Group of Australia using a press-fit technique with either ILP or OPL implant designs. Despite the consistently demonstrated clinical benefits, concerns regarding potential complications following STOI have slowed its widespread adoption. As more patients are followed for a longer period of time, longitudinal studies have confirmed complication rates are very acceptable, similar to those of total ankle and total elbow replacements. One of the major risk category is implant removal. The primary goal of this study was to investigate the complications and technical issues associated with transtibial osseointegration implant removal due to any cause. The focus here will be on the press-fit ILP and OPL implants, including the indications for removal and patient outcomes following removal. A review of our osseointegration registry between November 2010 and March 2022 was performed. Inclusion criteria were patients who have undergone removal of a transtibial osseointegration implant due to any cause. Selected patients either had a follow-up of at least two years or had their index osseointegration surgery at least two years prior to when the study was performed. Patients who have had osseointegration at other anatomic levels, and patients who underwent simultaneous total knee replacement with transtibial osseointegration were excluded from the registry search.Introduction
Materials & Methods
Transtibial osseointegration (TFOI) for amputees has limited but clear literature identifying superior quality of life and mobility versus a socketed prosthesis. Some amputees have knee arthritis that would be relieved by a total knee replacement (TKR). No other group has reported performing a TKR in association with TTOI (TKR+TTOI). We report the outcomes of nine patients who had TKR+TTOI, followed for an average 6.5 years. Our osseointegration registry was retrospectively reviewed to identify all patients who had TTOI and who also had TKR, performed at least two years prior. Four patients had TKR first the TTOI, four patients had simultaneous TKR+TTOI, and one patient had 1 OI first then TKR. All constructs were in continuity from hinged TKR to the prosthetic limb. Outcomes were: complications prompting surgical intervention, and changes in daily prosthesis wear hours, Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (QTFA), and Short Form 36 (SF36). All patients had clinical follow-up, but two patients did not have complete survey and mobility tests at both time periods.Introduction
Materials & Methods
Traditional socket prosthesis (TSP) rehabilitation for amputees is associated with substantial dissatisfaction due to poor mobility and pain from soft tissue squeezing. Osseointegration (OI), eliminates skin compression and prosthesis fit issues, providing superior mobility and quality of life (QOL) for most amputees. The potential for OI to benefit patients with exceptionally poor mobility is understudied. To address this knowledge gap, this project investigated the mobility and QOL changes. A retrospective review was performed to identify transfemoral amputees who presented with wheelchair-bound mobility (K0) and had at least five years of post-osseointegration follow-up. Outcome measures included changes in mobility (K-level, daily prosthesis wear hours, Timed Up and Go (TUG), 6 minute walk test (6MWT)) and QOL (Questionnaire for persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (QTFA); Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF36). Adverse events recorded included debridement for infection, implant revision surgery, fractures, and implant failures. 9 patients with mean age 48.2±7.7 (range 34-59) years were included. The proportion of patients achieving K-level >2 improved from 0/9=0% to [9/9=100%], p<0.001. The 6MWT improved from 0±0 to 320.65±57 meters (p<0.001). The TUG improved from incapable to 10.68±2.7 seconds (p<0.001). Statistically significant QOL metrics included QTFA global score (33.33±31 vs 68.52±21, p=0.039), SF36 physical component score (30.03±6.3 vs 42.34±12, p=0.023) and the SF36 mental component score (47.89±8.8 vs 51.95±10.4, p=0.332). Six patients required operative intervention to address complications. Five developed infections: three had debridement, and 2 required implant removal and reimplantation. Osseointegration does confer significant sustained mobility and quality of life improvement for wheelchair bound transfemoral amputees. All 9 K0 patients had statistically improved mobility and QOL after osseointegrated reconstruction. This supports osseointegration as an effective rapid and long-term rehabilitation alternative for patients who have the neurologic and muscular capacity to walk but are unable due to issues related to their TSP.
Percutaneous EndoProsthetic Osseointegration for Limbs (PEPOL) facilitates improved quality of life (QOL) and objective mobility for most amputee's discontent with their traditional socket prosthesis (TSP) experience. Some amputees desiring PEPOL have residual bone much shorter than the currently marketed press-fit implant lengths of 14-16 cm, potentially a risk for failure to integrate. We report on the techniques used, complications experienced, the management of those complications, and the overall mobility outcomes of seven patients who had femur distraction osteogenesis (DO) with a Freedom nail followed by PEPOL. Retrospective evaluation of a prospectively maintained database identified nine patients (5 females) who had transfemoral DO in preparation for PEPOL with two years of follow-up after PEPOL. Six patients had traumatic causes of amputation, one had perinatal complications, one was performed to manage necrotizing fasciitis and one was performed as a result of osteosarcoma. The residual femurs on average started at 102.2±39.7 mm and were lengthened 58.1±20.7 mm, 98±45% of goal (99±161% of the original bone length). Five patients (56%) had a complication requiring additional surgery. At a mean of 3.4±0.6 (2.6-4.4) years following osseointegration six patients had K-level >2. The 6 Minute Walk Test remained unchanged (267±56 vs 308 ± 117 meters). Patient self-rating of prosthesis function, problems, and amputee situation did not significantly change from before DO to after osseointegration. Six patients required additional surgery following osseointegration: six to remove fixation plates placed to maintain distraction osteogenesis length at osseointegration; two required irritation and debridement for infection. Extremely short residual femurs which make TSP use troublesome can be lengthening with externally controlled telescoping nails, and successfully achieve osseointegration. However, it is imperative to counsel patients that additional surgery to address inadequate regenerate or to remove painful hardware used to maintain fixation may be necessary. This may improve the amputee's expectations before beginning on a potentially arduous process.
Knee arthrodesis is one of the treatment options for limb salvage of a failed total knee replacement (TKR) when further revisions were contraindicated. The aim of this study is to determine patient outcomes after knee arthrodesis (KA) following a failed TKR. A literature search was conducted for studies published from January 2000 through January 2022 via Medline, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases. Only primary research studies were included with independent extraction of articles by two reviewers. Results were synthesised by narrative review according to PRISMA guidelines, with full tabulation of all included study results.Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
Osseointegrated prosthetic limbs allow better mobility than socket-mounted prosthetics for lower limb amputees. Fractures, however, can occur in the residual limb, but they have rarely been reported. Approximately 2% to 3% of amputees with socket-mounted prostheses may fracture within five years. This is the first study which directly addresses the risks and management of periprosthetic osseointegration fractures in amputees. A retrospective review identified 518 osseointegration procedures which were undertaken in 458 patients between 2010 and 2018 for whom complete medical records were available. Potential risk factors including time since amputation, age at osseointegration, bone density, weight, uni/bilateral implantation and sex were evaluated with multiple logistic regression. The mechanism of injury, technique and implant that was used for fixation of the fracture, pre-osseointegration and post fracture mobility (assessed using the K-level) and the time that the prosthesis was worn for in hours/day were also assessed.Aims
Methods
