Quantitative assessment of compress-type osseointegrated prosthetic implants in human bone using electromechanical impedance spectroscopic methods

  • Wentao WangEmail author
  • Jerome P. Lynch
Original Article


Osseointegrated (OI) prostheses are a promising alternative to traditional socket prostheses. They can enhance the quality of life of amputees by avoiding fit and comfort issues commonly associated with sockets. The main structural element of the OI prosthesis is a biocompatible metallic implant that is surgically implanted into the bone of the residual limb. The implant is designed to provide a conducive surface for the host bone to osseointegrate with. The osseointegration process of the implant is difficult to clinically evaluate, leading to conservative postoperative rehabilitation approaches. Elastic stress waves generated in an OI prosthesis have been previously proposed to interrogate the implant-bone interface for quantitative assessment of the osseointegration process. This paper provides a detailed overview of the various elastic stress wave methods previously explored for in situ characterization of OI implants. Specifically, the paper explores the use of electromechanical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) to assess the OI process in compress-type OI prostheses. The EIS approach measures the electrical impedance spectrum of lead zirconate titanate elements bonded to the free end of the implant. The research utilizes both numerical simulation and experimental verification to establish that the electromechanical impedance spectrum is sensitive (between 400 and 460 kHz) to both the degree and location of osseointegration. A baseline-free OI index is proposed to quantify the degree of osseointegration at the implant-bone interface and to assess the stability of the OI implant for clinical decision making.


Prosthesis Osseointegration Electrical impedance spectroscopy Guided waves Bone Piezoelectric 



This study is financially supported by the Office of Naval Research under Grant N00014-18-1-2477. The authors also wish to acknowledge the guidance provided by Dr. Liming Salvino (Office of Naval Research) and Dr. Jonathan Forsberg (Walter Reed National Military Medical Center).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper. The compress-type OI implant system presented in this study is similar to the commercial Compress® implant from Zimmer-Biomet but was independently designed and manufactured by the paper authors. The authors have no financial relationship with Zimmer-Biomet.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. Guidelines for training personnel in developing countries for prosthetics and orthotics services.
  2. 2.
    Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, Travison TG, Brookmeyer R. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2008;89(3):422–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fischer, H. A guide to US military casualty statistics: operation freedom’s sentinel, operation inherent resolve, operation new dawn, operation Iraqi freedom, and operation enduring freedom.
  4. 4.
    Paternò L, Ibrahimi M, Gruppioni E, Menciassi A, Ricotti L. Sockets for limb prostheses: a review of existing technologies and open challenges. IEEE T Bio-Med Eng. 2018;65(9):1996–2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McGough R, Goodman M, Randall R, Forsberg J, Potter B, Lindsey B. The Compress® transcutaneous implant for rehabilitation following limb amputation. Der Unfallchirurg. 2017;120(4):300–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herbert N, Simpson D, Spence WD, Ion W. A preliminary investigation into the development of 3-D printing of prosthetic sockets. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(2):141–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brånemark R, Berlin Ö, Hagberg K, Bergh P, Gunterberg B, Rydevik B. A novel osseointegrated percutaneous prosthetic system for the treatment of patients with transfemoral amputation: a prospective study of 51 patients. Bone Joint J. 2014;96(1):106–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thesleff A, Brånemark R, Håkansson B, Ortiz-Catalan M. Biomechanical characterisation of bone-anchored implant systems for amputation limb prostheses: a systematic review. Ann Biomed Eng. 2018;46(3):377–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frossard L, Merlo G, Quincey T, Burkett B, Berg D. Development of a procedure for the government provision of bone-anchored prosthesis using osseointegration in Australia. PharmacoEconomics. 2017;1(4):301–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van de Meent H, Hopman MT, Frölke JP. Walking ability and quality of life in subjects with transfemoral amputation: a comparison of osseointegration with socket prostheses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(11):2174–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Al Muderis M, Khemka A, Lord SJ, Van de Meent H, Frölke JPM. Safety of osseointegrated implants for transfemoral amputees: a two-center prospective cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg. 2016;98(11):900–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lundberg M, Hagberg K, Bullington J. My prosthesis as a part of me: a qualitative analysis of living with an osseointegrated prosthetic limb. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35(2):207–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sullivan J, Uden M, Robinson K, Sooriakumaran S. Rehabilitation of the transfemoral amputee with an osseointegrated prosthesis: the United Kingdom experience. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2003;27(2):114–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Aaron RK, Herr HM, Ciombor DM, Hochberg LR, Donoghue JP, Briant CL, Morgan JR, Ehrlich MG. Horizons in prosthesis development for the restoration of limb function. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14(10):198–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frost HM. A 2003 update of bone physiology and Wolff’s Law for clinicians. Angle Orthod. 2004;74(1):3–15.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Regling G. Wolff’s law and connective tissue regulation: modern interdisciplinary comments on wolff’s law of connective tissue regulation and rational understanding of common clinical problems. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter; 2011.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tyler WK, Healey JH, Morris CD, Boland PJ, O’Donnell RJ. Compress periprosthetic fractures: interface stability and ease of revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(11):2800–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vien BS, Chiu WK, Russ M, Fitzgerald MJS. A quantitative approach for the bone-implant osseointegration assessment based on ultrasonic elastic guided waves. Sensors. 2019;19(3):454–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Farrar C, Park G, Sohn H, Inman DJ. Overview of piezoelectric impedance-based health monitoring and path forward. Shock Vib Digest. 2003;35(6):451–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mukhopadhyay SC. Wearable sensors for human activity monitoring: a review. IEEE Sens J. 2014;15(3):1321–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pickup JC, Hussain F, Evans ND, Sachedina N. In vivo glucose monitoring: the clinical reality and the promise. Biosens Bioelectron. 2005;20(10):1897–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhuang Y, Kopsaftopoulos F, Dugnani R, Chang F-K. Integrity monitoring of adhesively bonded joints via an electromechanical impedance-based approach. Struct Health Monit. 2018;17(5):1031–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Higson S. Biosensors for medical applications. Cambridge: Elsevier; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Njeh CF, Hans D, Fuerst T, Gluer CC, Genant HK. Quantitative ultrasound: assessment of osteoporosis and bone status. London: Taylor & Francis; 1999.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Bhalla S, Bajaj S. Bone characterization using piezotransducers as biomedical sensors. Strain. 2008;44(6):475–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bhalla S, Suresh R. Condition monitoring of bones using piezo-transducers. Meccanica. 2013;48(9):2233–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bender JW, Friedman HI, Giurgiutiu V, Watson C, Fitzmaurice M, Yost ML. The use of biomedical sensors to monitor capsule formation around soft tissue implants. Ann Plas Surg. 2006;56(1):72–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wong LCY, Chiu WK, Russ M, Liew S. Experimental testing of vibration analysis methods to monitor recovery of stiffness of a fixated synthetic pelvis: a preliminary study. Conf Proc Key Eng Mater. 2013;558:386–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ong W, Chiu W, Russ M, Chiu Z. Integrating sensing elements on external fixators for healing assessment of fractured femur. Struct Control Health. 2016;23(12):1388–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ribolla EL, Rizzo P. Modeling the electromechanical impedance technique for the assessment of dental implant stability. J Biomech. 2015;48(10):1713–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang W, Lynch JP. Identification of bone fracture in osseointegrated prostheses using Rayleigh wave methods. Conf Porc SPIE Hlth Monit Struct Bio Syst. 2018;10600:1–11.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang W, Lynch JP. Application of guided wave methods to quantitatively assess healing in osseointegrated prostheses. Struct Health Monit. 2018;17(6):1377–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bhalla S, Moharana S, Talakokula V, Kaur N. Piezoelectric materials: applications in SHM, energy harvesting and biomechanics. London: Wiley; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Giurgiutiu V. Structural health monitoring: with piezoelectric wafer active sensors. Oxford: Elsevier; 2007.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Crawley EF, de Luis J. Use of piezoelectric actuators as elements of intelligent structures. AIAA J. 1987;25(10):1373–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Liang C, Sun F, Rogers C. Coupled electro-mechanical analysis of adaptive material systems-determination of the actuator power consumption and system energy transfer. J Inter Mater Syst Struct. 1997;8(4):335–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dugnani R, Zhuang Y, Kopsaftopoulos F, Chang F-K. Adhesive bond-line degradation detection via a cross-correlation electromechanical impedance–based approach. Struct Health Monit. 2016;15(6):650–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kramer M, Tanner B, Horvai A, O’Donnell R. Compressive osseointegration promotes viable bone at the endoprosthetic interface: retrieval study of Compress® implants. Int Orthop. 2008;32(5):567–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Taheri E, Sepehri B, Ganji R. Mechanical validation of perfect tibia 3D model using computed tomography scan. J Eng. 2012;4(12):877–80.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Krone, R, Schuster, P. An investigation on the importance of material anisotropy in finite-element modeling of the human femur.
  43. 43.
    Hernandez C, Keaveny T. A biomechanical perspective on bone quality. Bone. 2006;39(6):1173–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Manjubala I, Liu Y, Epari DR, Roschger P, Schell H, Fratzl P, Duda G. Spatial and temporal variations of mechanical properties and mineral content of the external callus during bone healing. Bone. 2009;45(2):185–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wang W, Zhang H, Lynch JP, Cesnik CE, Li H. Experimental and numerical validation of guided wave phased arrays integrated within standard data acquisition systems for structural health monitoring. Struct Control Health. 2018;25(6):2171–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nader, G, Silva, EN, Adamowski, JC. Effective damping value of piezoelectric transducer determined by experimental techniques and numerical analysis. In: Conference Proceedings of the ABCM Symposium Series Mechatronics 2004; 271–279.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Love BJ, Teyssandier F, Sun YY, Wong CP. Sigmoidal chemorheological models of chip-underfill materials offer alternative predictions of combined cure and flow. Macromol Mater Eng. 2008;293(10):832–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Dümichen E, Javdanitehran M, Erdmann M, Trappe V, Sturm H, Braun U, Ziegmann G. Analyzing the network formation and curing kinetics of epoxy resins by in situ near-infrared measurements with variable heating rates. Thermochim Acta. 2015;616(8):49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Medical and Biological Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations