Safety of OPRA procedure for individuals with upper limb amputation

Surgical implantations of osseointegrated fixations for bone-anchored prosthesis are developing at an unprecedented pace worldwide while initial skepticism in the orthopedic community is slowly fading away. Clearly, this option is becoming accessible to a wide range of individuals with limb loss. [1-18] The team led by Dr Rickard Branemark has previously published a number of landmark articles focusing on the benefits and safety of the OPRA fixation mainly for individual with lower limb loss, particularly those with transfemoral amputation. [1-3, 19-32] However, similar information is lacking for those with upper limb amputation. This team is once again taking a leading role by sharing a retrospective study focusing on the implant survival, adverse events, implant stability, and bone remodelling for 18 individuals with transhumeral amputation over a 5-year post-operative period. Therefore, a comprehensive analysis of the safety of the procedure is accessible for the first time. In essence, the results showed an implant survival rate of 83% and 80% at 2 and 5 year follow ups, respectively. The most frequent adverse events were superficial skin infections that occurred for 28% (5) participants while the least frequent was deep bone infection that happened only once. More importantly, 38% of complications due to infections were effectively managed with nonoperative treatments (e.g., revision of skin penetration site, local cleaning, antibiotics, restriction of soft tissue mobility). Implant stability and bone remodelling were satisfactory. Clearly, this study provided better understanding of the safety of the OPRA surgical and rehabilitation procedure for individuals with upper limb amputation while establishing standards and benchmark data for future studies. However, strong evidences of the benefits are yet to be demonstrated. However, increase in health related quality of life and functional outcomes (e.g., range of movement) are likely. Altogether, the team of authors are providing further evidence that bone-anchored attachment is definitely a promising alternative to socket prostheses.

The optimal frequency of aquatic physiotherapy for individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain: a randomised controlled trial

Purpose: To establish whether there was a difference in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in people with chronic musculoskeletal disorders (PwCMSKD) after participating in a multimodal physiotherapy program (MPP) either two or three sessions a week. Methods: Total of 114 PwCMSKD participated in this prospective randomised controlled trial. An individualised MPP, consisting of exercises for mobility, motor-control, muscle strengthening, cardiovascular training, and health education, was implemented either twice a week (G2: n = 58) or three times a week) (G3: n = 56) for 1 year. Outcomes: HRQoL physical and mental health state (PHS/MHS), Roland Morris disability Questionnaire (RMQ), Neck-Disability-Index (NDI) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities’ Arthritis Index (WOMAC) were used to measure outcomes of MPP for people with chronic low back pain, chronic neck pain and osteoarthritis, respectively. Measures were taken at baseline, 8 weeks (8 w), 6 months (6 m), and 1 year (1 y) after starting the programme. Results: No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups (G2 and G3), except in NDI at 8 w (−3.34, (CI 95%: −6.94/0.84, p = 0.025 (scale 0–50)). All variables showed improvement reaching the following values (from baseline to 1 y) G2: PHS: 57.72 (baseline: 41.17; (improvement: 16.55%), MHS: 74.51 (baseline: 47.46, 27.05%), HRQoL 0.90 (baseline: 0.72, 18%)), HRQoL-VAS 84.29 (baseline: 58.04, 26.25%), RMQ 4.15 (baseline: 7.85, 15.42%), NDI 3.96 (baseline: 21.87, 35.82%), WOMAC 7.17 (baseline: 25.51, 19.10%). G3: PHS: 58.64 (baseline: 39.75, 18.89%), MHS: 75.50 (baseline: 45.45, (30.05%), HRQoL 0.67 (baseline: 0.88, 21%), HRQoL-VAS 86.91 (baseline: 52.64, 34.27%), RMQ 4.83 (baseline: 8.93, 17.08%), NDI 4.91 (baseline: 23.82, 37.82%), WOMAC 6.35 (baseline: 15.30, 9.32%). Conclusions: No significant differences between the two groups were found in the outcomes of a MPP except in the NDI at 8 weeks, but both groups improved in all variables during the course of 1 year under study.

Evolution in design of integral leg prosthesis leads to improved outcomes

Developments of surgical attachments for bone-anchored prostheses are slowly but surely winning over the initial disbelief in the orthopedic community. Clearly, this option is becoming accessible to a wide range of individuals with limb loss. Seminal studies have demonstrated that the pioneering procedure relying on screw-type fixation engenders major clinical benefits and acceptable safety. The surgical procedure for press-fit implants, such as the Integral-Leg-Prosthesis (ILP) has been described Dr Aschoff and his team. Some clinical benefits of press-fit implants have been also established. Here, his team is once again taking a leading role by sharing the progression over 15 years of the rate of deep infections for 69 individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with three successive refined versions of the ILP. By definition, a double-blind randomized clinical trial to test the effect of different fixation’s design is difficult. Alternatively, Juhnke and colleagues are reporting the outcomes of action-research study for a cohort of participants. The first and foremost important outcome of this study is the confirmation that the current design of the IPL and rehabilitation program are altogether leading to an acceptable rate of deep infection and other adverse events (e.g., structural failure of implant, periprosthetic factures). This study is also providing a strong insight onto the effect of major phases in redesign of an implant on the risk of infection. This is an important reminder that the development of a successful osseointegrated implant is unlikely to be immediate but the results of a learning curve made of empirical and sequential changes led by a reflective clinical practice. Clearly, this study provided better understanding of the safety of the ILP surgical and rehabilitation procedure while establishing standards and benchmark data for future studies focusing on design and infection of press-fit implants. Complementary observations of relationship between infection and cofounders such as loading of the prosthesis and prosthetic components used would be beneficial.Further definitive evidences of the clinical benefits with the latest design would be valuable, although an increase in health related quality of life and functional outcomes are likely to be confirmed. Altogether, the authors are providing compelling evidence that bone-anchored attachments particularly those relying on press-fit implants are an established alternative to socket prostheses.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of exercise referral schemes: A systematic review and economic evaluation

- Background Exercise referral schemes (ERS) aim to identify inactive adults in the primary-care setting. The GP or health-care professional then refers the patient to a third-party service, with this service taking responsibility for prescribing and monitoring an exercise programme tailored to the needs of the individual. - Objective To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ERS for people with a diagnosed medical condition known to benefit from physical activity (PA). The scope of this report was broadened to consider individuals without a diagnosed condition who are sedentary. - Data sources MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; The Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science; SPORTDiscus and ongoing trial registries were searched (from 1990 to October 2009) and included study references were checked. - Methods Systematic reviews: the effectiveness of ERS, predictors of ERS uptake and adherence, and the cost-effectiveness of ERS; and the development of a decision-analytic economic model to assess cost-effectiveness of ERS. - Results Seven randomised controlled trials (UK, n = 5; non-UK, n = 2) met the effectiveness inclusion criteria, five comparing ERS with usual care, two compared ERS with an alternative PA intervention, and one to an ERS plus a self-determination theory (SDT) intervention. In intention-to-treat analysis, compared with usual care, there was weak evidence of an increase in the number of ERS participants who achieved a self-reported 90-150 minutes of at least moderate-intensity PA per week at 6-12 months' follow-up [pooled relative risk (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.25]. There was no consistent evidence of a difference between ERS and usual care in the duration of moderate/vigorous intensity and total PA or other outcomes, for example physical fitness, serum lipids, health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There was no between-group difference in outcomes between ERS and alternative PA interventions or ERS plus a SDT intervention. None of the included trials separately reported outcomes in individuals with medical diagnoses. Fourteen observational studies and five randomised controlled trials provided a numerical assessment of ERS uptake and adherence (UK, n = 16; non-UK, n = 3). Women and older people were more likely to take up ERS but women, when compared with men, were less likely to adhere. The four previous economic evaluations identified suggest ERS to be a cost-effective intervention. Indicative incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) estimates for ERS for various scenarios were based on a de novo model-based economic evaluation. Compared with usual care, the mean incremental cost for ERS was £169 and the mean incremental QALY was 0.008, with the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at £20,876 per QALY in sedentary people without a medical condition and a cost per QALY of £14,618 in sedentary obese individuals, £12,834 in sedentary hypertensive patients, and £8414 for sedentary individuals with depression. Estimates of cost-effectiveness were highly sensitive to plausible variations in the RR for change in PA and cost of ERS. - Limitations We found very limited evidence of the effectiveness of ERS. The estimates of the cost-effectiveness of ERS are based on a simple analytical framework. The economic evaluation reports small differences in costs and effects, and findings highlight the wide range of uncertainty associated with the estimates of effectiveness and the impact of effectiveness on HRQoL. No data were identified as part of the effectiveness review to allow for adjustment of the effect of ERS in different populations. - Conclusions There remains considerable uncertainty as to the effectiveness of ERS for increasing activity, fitness or health indicators or whether they are an efficient use of resources in sedentary people without a medical diagnosis. We failed to identify any trial-based evidence of the effectiveness of ERS in those with a medical diagnosis. Future work should include randomised controlled trials assessing the cinical effectiveness and cost-effectivenesss of ERS in disease groups that may benefit from PA. - Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.