Static load bearing exercises during rehabilitation of individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with osseointegrated implant: Load compliance

Osseointegration has been introduced in the orthopaedic surgery in the 1990’s in Gothenburg (Sweden). To date, there are two frequently used commercially available human implants: the OPRA (Integrum, Sweden) and ILP (Orthodynamics, Germany) systems. The rehabilitation program with both systems include some form of static load bearing exercises. These latter involved following a load progression that is monitored by the bathroom scale, providing only the load applied on the vertical axis. The loading data could be analysed through different biomechanical variables. For instance, the load compliance, corresponding to the difference between the load recommended (LR) and the load actually applied on the implant, will be presented here.

Static load bearing exercises during rehabilitation of individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with osseointegrated implant: Kinetic analysis

The desire to solve problems caused by socket prostheses in transfemoral amputees and the acquired success of osseointegration in the dental application has led to the introduction of osseointegration in the orthopedic surgery. Since its first introduction in 1990 in Gothenburg Sweden the osseointegrated (OI) orthopedic fixation has proven several benefits[1]. The surgery consists of two surgical procedures followed by a lengthy rehabilitation program. The rehabilitation program after an OI implant includes a specific training period with a short training prosthesis. Since mechanical loading is considered to be one of the key factors that influence bone mass and the osseointegration of bone-anchored implants, the rehabilitation program will also need to include some form of load bearing exercises (LBE). To date there are two frequently used commercially available human implants. We can find proof in the literature that load bearing exercises are performed by patients with both types of OI implants. We refer to two articles, a first one written by Dr. Aschoff and all and published in 2010 in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.[2] The second one presented by Hagberg et al in 2009 gives a very thorough description of the rehabilitation program of TFA fitted with an OPRA implant. The progression of the load however is determined individually according to the residual skeleton’s quality, pain level and body weight of the participant.[1] Patients are using a classical bathroom weighing scale to control the load on the implant during the course of their rehabilitation. The bathroom scale is an affordable and easy-to-use device but it has some important shortcomings. The scale provides instantaneous feedback to the patient only on the magnitude of the vertical component of the applied force. The forces and moments applied along and around the three axes of the implant are unknown. Although there are different ways to assess the load on the implant for instance through inverse dynamics in a motion analysis laboratory [3-6] this assessment is challenging. A recent proof- of-concept study by Frossard et al (2009) showed that the shortcomings of the weighing scale can be overcome by a portable kinetic system based on a commercial transducer[7].

Walking ability of individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with osseointegrated implant

The prosthetic benefits of osseointegrated fixation for individuals with limb loss, particularly those with transfemoral amputation (TFA), have been clearly demonstrated in the literature. However, very little information is currently available to established how this prosthetic benefits are translated into functional outcomes and, more precisely, walking abilities [1-3]. The ultimate aim of this presentation was to explore how walking abilities of a TFA fitted with an OPRA fixation could be assess through typical temporal and spatial gait characteristics[2].

Static load bearing exercises of individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with an osseointegrated implant: Reliability of kinetic data

This study aimed at presenting the intra-tester reliability of the static load bearing exercises (LBEs) performed by individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA) fitted with an osseointegrated implant to stimulate the bone remodelling process. There is a need for a better understanding of the implementation of these exercises particularly the reliability. The intra-tester reliability is discussed with a particular emphasis on inter-load prescribed, inter-axis and inter-component reliabilities as well as the effect of body weight normalisation. Eleven unilateral TFAs fitted with an OPRA implant performed five trials in four loading conditions. The forces and moments on the three axes of the implant were measured directly with an instrumented pylon including a six-channel transducer. Reliability of loading variables was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and percentage standard error of measurement values (%SEMs). The ICCs of all variables were above 0.9 and the %SEM values ranged between 0 and 87%. This study showed a high between-participants’ variance highlighting the lack of loading consistency typical of symptomatic population as well as a high reliability between the loading sessions indicating a plausible correct repetition of the LBE by the participants. However, these outcomes must be understood within the framework of the proposed experimental protocol.

Loading compliance of static load bearing exercises performed by transfemoral amputees fitted with an osseointegrated implant

Background To date bone-anchored prostheses are used to alleviate the concerns caused by socket suspended prostheses and to improve the quality of life of transfemoral amputees (TFA). Currently, two implants are commercially available (i.e., OPRA (Integrum AB, Sweden), ILP (Orthodynamics GmbH, Germany)). [1-17]The success of the OPRA technique is codetermined by the rehabilitation program. TFA fitted with an osseointegrated implant perform progressive mechanical loading (i.e. static load bearing exercises (LBE)) to facilitate bone remodelling around the implant.[18, 19] Aim This study investigated the trustworthiness of monitoring the load prescribed (LP) during experimental static LBEs using the vertical force provided by a mechanical bathroom scale that is considered a surrogate of the actual load applied. Method Eleven unilateral TFAs fitted with an OPRA implant performed five trials in four loading conditions. The forces and moments on the three axes of the implant were measured directly with an instrumented pylon including a six-channel transducer. The “axial” and “vectorial” comparisons corresponding to the difference between the force applied on the long axis of the fixation and LP as well as the resultant of the three components of the load applied and LP, respectively were analysed Results For each loading condition, Wilcoxon One-Sample Signed Rank Tests were used to investigate if significant differences (p<0.05) could be demonstrated between the force applied on the long axis and LP, and between the resultant of the force and LP. The results demonstrated that the raw axial and vectorial differences were significantly different from zero in all conditions (p<0.05), except for the vectorial difference for the 40 kg loading condition (p=0.182). The raw axial difference was negative for all the participants in every loading condition, except for TFA03 in the 10 kg condition (11.17 N). Discussion & Conclusion This study showed a significant lack of axial compliance. The load applied on the long axis was significantly smaller than LP in every loading condition. This led to a systematic underloading of the long axis of the implant during the proposed experimental LBE. Monitoring the vertical force might be only partially reflective of the actual load applied, particularly on the long axis of the implant.

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.