Skip to main content
Log in

Osseointegrated Prosthetic Limb for the treatment of lower limb amputations

Experience and outcomes

Das Osseointegrated Prosthetic Limb zur Behandlung von Amputationen der unteren Extremitäten

Erfahrungen und Ergebnisse

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Unfallchirurg Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Osseointegration has emerged over the past two decades as a dramatically different approach for the treatment of lower limb amputations, which involves direct attachment of the prosthesis to the skeletal residuum. This approach can address many of the socket–interface issues associated with socket prostheses which represent the current standard of care for amputees. The Osseointegrated Prosthetic Limb (OPL) is an osseointegration implant with a new design and improved features compared to other available implant systems.

Objectives

To report on the experience and outcomes of using the OPL for osseointegrated reconstruction of lower limb amputations.

Materials and methods

This is a retrospective study of 22 patients who received the OPL implant between December 2013 and November 2014. Clinical outcomes were obtained pre- and post-operatively, with results reported at the 1‑year follow-up. 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), and Timed Up and Go (TUG). Adverse events were also recorded.

Results

Compared to the mean pre-operative values obtained while patients were using socket prostheses or were wheelchair-bound, the mean post-operative values for all four validated outcome measures were significantly improved. There were 15 episodes of minor infections in 12 patients, all of which responded to antibiotics. Soft tissue refashioning was performed electively on 6 patients. No other adverse events were recorded.

Conclusions

The results demonstrate that osseointegration surgery using the OPL is a relatively safe and effective procedure for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of lower limb amputees.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die Osseointegration hat sich gegenüber der bisherigen Versorgung in den letzten beiden Jahrzehnten als völlig anderer Ansatz der Behandlung von Amputationen der unteren Extremitäten erwiesen, wozu die direkte Befestigung der Prothese an den verbliebenen Knochen gehört. Dieser Ansatz kann viele der Probleme zwischen Stumpf und Schaft lösen, die mit den Schaftprothesen verbunden sind, welche derzeit den Versorgungsstandard für Patienten nach Amputation darstellen. Das Osseointegrated Prosthetic Limb (OPL) ist eine Osseointegrationsimplantat mit neuem Design und verbesserten Eigenschaften im Vergleich zu den anderen verfügbaren Implantationssystemen.

Ziel der Arbeit

Ziel war, über Erfahrungen und Ergebnisse beim Einsatz des OPL zur osseointegrierten Rekonstruktion von Beinamputationen zu berichten.

Material und Methoden

Es handelt sich um eine retrospektive Studie an 22 Patienten, die zwischen Dezember 2013 und November 2014 ein OPL-Implantat erhielten. Klinische Parameter wurden prä- und postoperativ erhoben sowie die Ergebnisse nach einjähriger Nachbeobachtung erfasst. Ergebnisparameter waren ein Fragebogen für Beinamputierte (Questionnaire for persons with a Trans-Femoral Amputation, Q‑TFA), der Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36), der 6‑min-Gehtest (Six-Minute Walk Test, 6MWT) und die Messung der Zeit für Aufstehen und Gehen (Timed Up and Go, TUG). Unerwünschte Ereignisse wurden ebenfalls dokumentiert.

Ergebnisse

Im Vergleich zu den mittleren präoperativen Werten, während die Patienten Schaftprothesen trugen oder an den Rollstuhl gebunden waren, verbesserten sich die mittleren postoperativen Werte für alle 4 validierten Ergebnisparameter signifikant. Es gab 15 Episoden leichterer Infektionen bei 12 Patienten, die alle auf Antibiotika ansprachen. Ein Korrektureingriff an den Weichteilen erfolgte elektiv bei 6 Patienten. Es wurden keine weiteren unerwünschten Ereignisse dokumentiert.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die Osseointegrationschirurgie mit Verwendung des OPL ein relativ sicheres und wirksames Verfahren zur Rekonstruktion und Rehabilitation von Patienten nach Beinamputation darstellt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ephraim PL, MacKenzie EJ, Wegener ST, Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE (2006) Environmental barriers experienced by amputees: The Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors – Short Form. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 87:328–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hagberg K, Brånemark R (2001) Consequences of non-vascular trans-femoral amputation: A survey of quality of life, prosthetic use and problems. Prosthet Orthot Int 25:186–194

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Livingston DH, Keenan D, Kim D, Elcavage J, Malangoni MA (1994) Extent of disability following traumatic extremity amputation. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 37:495–499

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Senra H, Oliveira RA, Leal I, Vieira C (2012) Beyond the body image: a qualitative study on how adults experience lower limb amputation. Clin Rehabil 26:180–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE, MacKenzie EJ, Burgess AR (2001) Use and satisfaction with prosthetic devices among persons with trauma-related amputations: A long-term outcome study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 80:563–571

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Meulenbelt HEJ, Geertzen JHB, Jonkman MF, Dijkstra PU (2011) Skin problems of the stump in lower limb amputees: 1. A clinical study. Acta Derm Venereol 91:173–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lyon CC, Kulkarni J, Zimerson E, Van Ross E, Beck MH (2000) Skin disorders in amputees. J Am Acad Dermatol 42:501–507

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Branemark R, Branemark P, Rydevik B, Myers RR (2001) Osseointegration in skeletal reconstruction and rehabilitation: a review. J Rehabil Res Dev 38:175

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Van de Meent H, Hopman MT, Frölke JP (2013) Walking ability and quality of life in subjects with transfemoral amputation: A comparison of osseointegration with socket prostheses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 94:2174–2178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brånemark R, Berlin Ö, Hagberg K, Bergh P, Gunterberg B, Rydevik B (2014) A novel osseointegrated percutaneous prosthetic system for the treatment of patients with transfemoral amputation: A prospective study of 51 patients. Bone Joint J 96-B:106–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hagberg K, Brånemark R, Gunterberg B, Rydevik B (2008) Osseointegrated trans-femoral amputation prostheses: Prospective results of general and condition-specific quality of life in 18 patients at 2‑year follow–up. Prosthet Orthot Int 32:29–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lundberg M, Hagberg K, Bullington J (2011) My prosthesis as a part of me: a qualitative analysis of living with an osseointegrated prosthetic limb. Prosthet Orthot Int 35:207–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hagberg K, Häggström E, Uden M, Brånemark R (2005) Socket versus bone-anchored trans-femoral prostheses: Hip range of motion and sitting comfort. Prosthet Orthot Int 29:153–163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Frossard L, Hagberg K, Häggström E, Gow DL, Brånemark R, Pearcy M (2010) Functional outcome of transfemoral amputees fitted with an osseointegrated fixation: Temporal gait characteristics. J Prosthet Orthot 22:11–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Nebergall A, Bragdon C, Antonellis A, Kärrholm J, Brånemark R, Malchau H (2012) Stable fixation of an osseointegated implant system for above-the-knee amputees. Acta Orthop 83:121–128

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tillander J, Hagberg K, Hagberg L, Brånemark R (2010) Osseointegrated titanium implants for limb prostheses attachments: Infectious complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2781–2788

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Hagberg K, Brånemark R (2009) One hundred patients treated with osseointegrated transfemoral amputation prostheses – Rehabilitation perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev 46:331–344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Aschoff HH, Kennon RE, Keggi JM, Rubin LE (2010) Transcutaneous, distal femoral, intramedullary attachment for above-the-knee prostheses: An endo-exo device. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:180–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Al Muderis M, Aschoff HH, Bosley B, Raz G, Gerdesmeyer L, Burkett B (2016) Direct skeletal attachment prosthesis for the amputee athlete: the unknown potential. Sports Eng 19(3):141–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Al Muderis M, Khemka A, Lord SJ, Van de Meent H, Frölke JPM (2016) Safety of osseointegrated implants for transfemoral amputees: A two-center prospective cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:900–909

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Al Muderis M, Tetsworth K, Khemka A, Wilmot S, Bosley B, Lord SJ, Glatt V (2016) The Osseointegration Group of Australia Accelerated Protocol (OGAAP-1) for two-stage osseointegrated reconstruction of amputated limbs. Bone Jt J 98-B:952–960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hagberg K, Rickard B, Hägg O (2004) Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA): Initial validity and reliability of a new outcome measure. J Rehabil Res Dev 41:695–706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lipkin DP, Scriven AJ, Crake T, Poole-Wilson PA (1986) Six minute walking test for assessing exercise capacity in chronic heart failure. BMJ 292:653–655

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Schoppen T, Boonstra A, Groothoff JW, de Vries J, Göeken LNH, Eisma WH (1999) The timed “up and go” test: Reliability and validity in persons with unilateral lower limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 80:825–828

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, Gershon R, Cook K, Reeve B, Ader D, Fries JF, Bruce B, Rose M (2007) The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care 45:S3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Swiontkowski MF, Engelberg R, Martin DP, Agel J (1999) Short musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire: validity, reliability, and responsiveness. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:1245–1260

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hafner BJ, Morgan SJ, Abrahamson DC, Amtmann D (2015) Characterizing mobility from the prosthetic limb user’s perspective: Use of focus groups to guide development of the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility. Prosthet Orthot Int:. doi:10.1177/0309364615579315

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiao Jiao Li PhD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

M. Al Muderis reports royalties for design contributions from Permedica S.p.A (Milan, Italy) and AQ Implants GmbH (Ahrensburg, Germany) during the conduct of the study. W. Lu and J.J. Li report personal fees from Osseointegration International Pty Ltd (Sydney, Australia) during the conduct of the study.

This article does not contain any studies with animals, but involve human paticipants for which institutional approval has been obtained from the human research ethics committee, and all participants gave their informed consent (Sydney: 014153S).

Additional information

Redaktion

H. Aschoff, Lübeck

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al Muderis, M., Lu, W. & Li, J. Osseointegrated Prosthetic Limb for the treatment of lower limb amputations. Unfallchirurg 120, 306–311 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-016-0296-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-016-0296-8

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Navigation