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.

Bone-anchored prosthesis: Update in international developments

This symposium will provide hand-on update on the current development of the load sensors measuring the inner prosthetic loading that can strongly contribute the ever increasing demand for evidence-based clinical practice. Surgical implantations of osseointegrated fixations for bone-anchored prosthesis are developing at an unprecedented pace worldwide (e.g., Australia, UK, Sweden, US). This option is becoming accessible to a wide range of individuals with limb loss. With these new developments come new potential challenges and opportunities for all the stakeholders involved in the prosthetic care of these patients. Clearly, there is a need for those stakeholders, particularly those attending the ISPO, to be informed of the current and upcoming international developments in bone-anchored prostheses. The objectives of this symposium will be: • To present an overview of the current growth of the procedures worldwide (e.g., identification of key players, centers of activities, growth trend) with a strong focus on the introduction of the framework to evaluate the availability of the procedure at national level (e.g., number of patients treated, range of the levels of implantation, number of commercial fixations accessible), • To provide first-hand updates on the latest cutting-edge scientific and clinical developments of fixations and rehabilitations programs (e.g., Innovative design of implant, cost-effectiveness, long-terms rehabilitation outcomes for screw-type fixation, current developments in US, comparative analysis for press-fit type of implant, potential moves toward single-stage surgeries).

Rehabilitation of individuals with bone-anchored prosthesis: State-of-the-art and challenges

Individuals with limb amputation fitted with conventional socket-suspended prostheses often experience socket-related discomfort leading to a significant decrease in quality of life. Bone-anchored prostheses are increasingly acknowledged as viable alternative method of attachment of artificial limb. In this case, the prosthesis is attached directly to the residual skeleton through a percutaneous fixation. To date, a few osseointegration fixations are commercially available. Several devices are at different stages of development particularly in Europe and the US.[1-15] Clearly, surgical procedures are currently blooming worldwide. Indeed, Australia and Queensland in particular have one of the fastest growing populations. Previous studies involving either screw-type implants or press-fit fixations for bone-anchorage have focused on fragmented biomechanics aspects as well as the clinical benefits and safety of the procedure. However, very few publications have synthetized this information and provided an overview of the current developments in bone-anchored prostheses worldwide, let alone in Australia. The purposes of the presentation will be: 1. To provide an overview of the state-of-art developments in bone-anchored prostheses with as strong emphasis on the design of fixations, treatment, benefits, risks as well as future opportunities and challenges, 2. To present the current international developments of procedures for bone-anchored prostheses in terms of numbers of centers, number of cases and typical case-mix, 3. To highlight the current role Australia is playing as a leader worldwide in terms of growing population, broadest range of case-mix, choices of fixations, development of reimbursement schemes, unique clinical outcome registry for evidence-based practice, cutting-edge research, consumer demand and general public interest.

Cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prosthesis: the Queensland experience

Individuals with limb amputation fitted with conventional socket-suspended prostheses often experience socket-related discomfort leading to a significant decrease in quality of life. Bone-anchored prostheses are increasingly acknowledged as viable alternative method of attachment of artificial limb. In this case, the prosthesis is attached directly to the residual skeleton through a percutaneous fixation. To date, a few osseointegration fixations are commercially available. Several devices are at different stages of development particularly in Europe and the US. [1-15] Clearly, surgical procedures are currently blooming worldwide. Indeed, Australia and Queensland, in particular, have one of the fastest growing populations. Previous studies involving either screw-type implants or press-fit fixations for bone-anchorage have focused on biomechanics aspects as well as the clinical benefits and safety of the procedure. In principle, bone-anchored prostheses should eliminate lifetime expenses associated with sockets and, consequently, potentially alleviate the financial burden of amputation for governmental organizations. Unfortunately, publications focusing on cost-effectiveness are sparse. In fact, only one study published by Haggstrom et al (2012), reported that “despite significantly fewer visits for prosthetic service the annual mean costs for osseointegrated prostheses were comparable with socket-suspended prostheses”. Consequently, governmental organizations such as Queensland Artificial Limb Services (QALS) are facing a number of challenges while adjusting financial assistance schemes that should be fair and equitable to their clients fitted with bone-anchored prostheses. Clearly, more scientific evidence extracted from governmental databases is needed to further consolidate the analyses of financial burden associated with both methods of attachment (i.e., conventional sockets prostheses, bone-anchored prostheses). The purpose of the presentation will be to share the current outcomes of a cost-analysis study lead by QALS. The specific objectives will be: • To outline methodological avenues to assess the cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prostheses compared to conventional sockets prostheses, • To highlight the potential obstacles and limitations in cost-effectiveness analyses of bone-anchored prostheses, • To present cohort results of a cost-effectiveness (QALY vs cost) including the determination of fair Incremental cost-effectiveness Ratios (ICER) as well as cost-benefit analysis focusing on the comparing costs and key outcome indicators (e.g., QTFA, TUG, 6MWT, activities of daily living) over QALS funding cycles for both methods of attachment.

Health-related quality of life of individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with the Transcutaneous Bone Anchoring Prosthesis following the OGAAP

Background The benefits and safety transcutaneous bone anchored prosthesis relying on a screw fixation are well reported.[1-17] However, most of the studies on press-fit implants and joint replacement technology have focused on surgical techniques.[3, 18-23] One European centre using this technique has reported on health related quality of life (HRQOL) for a group of individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA).[3] Data from other centres are needed to assess the effectiveness of the technique in different settings. Aim This study aimed at reporting HRQOL data at baseline and up to 2-year follow-up for a group of TFAs treated by Osseointegration Group of Australia who followed the Osseointegration Group of Australia Accelerated Protocol (OGAAP), in Sydney between 08/12/2011 and 09/04/2014. Method A total of 16 TFAs (7 females and 9 males, age 51 ± 12 y, height 1.73 ± 0.12 m, weight 83 ±18 kg) participated in this study. The cause of amputation was trauma or congenital limb deficiency for 11 (69%) and 5 (31%) participants, respectively. A total of 12 (75%) participants were prosthetic users while 4(25%) were wheelchair bound prior the surgery. The HRQOL were obtained from Questionnaire for Persons with Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA) using the four main scales (i.e., Prosthetic use, Mobility, Problem, Global) one year before and between 6.5 and 24 months after the Stage 1 of the surgeries for the baseline and follow-up, respectively. Results The lapse of time before and after Stage 1 was -6.19±3.54 and 10.83±3.58 months respectively. The raw score and percentage of improvement are presented in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Discussion & Conclusion The average results demonstrated an improvement in each domain, particularly in the reduction of problems and an increase in global state. Furthermore, 56%, 75%, 94% and 69% of the participants reported an improvement in Prosthetic use, Mobility, Problem, Global scales, respectively. These results were comparable to previous studies relying of screwed fixation confirming that press-fit implantation is a viable alternative for bone-anchored prostheses.[1, 7, 8]

Transcutaneous bone-anchoring prosthesis with knee replacement: A novel treatment for amputees

Background Over the last two decades, Transcutaneous Bone-Anchored Prosthesis (TCBAP) has proven to be an effective alternative for prosthetic attachment for amputees, particularly for individuals unable to wear a socket. [1-17] However, the load transmitted through a typical TCBAP to the residual tibia and knee joint can be unbearable for transtibial amputees with knee arthritis. Aim A. To describe the surgical procedure combining TKR with TCBAP for the first time; and B. To present preliminary data on potential risks and benefits with assessment of clinical and functional outcomes at follow up Method We used a TCBAP connected to the tibial base plate of a Total Knee Replacement (TKR) prosthesis enabling the tibial residuum and the knee joint to act as weight sharing structures by transferring the load directly to the femur. We performed a standard hinged TKR connected to a custom made TCBAP at the first stage followed by creating a skin implant interface as a second stage. We retrospectively reviewed four cases of trans-tibial amputations presenting with knee joint arthritis. Patients were assessed clinically and functionally including standard measures of health-related quality of life, amputee mobility predictor tool, ambulation tests and actual activity level. Progress was monitored for 6-24 months. Results Clinical outcomes including adverse events show no major complications but one case of superficial infection. Functional outcomes improved for all participants as early as 6 months follow up. Discussion & Conclusion TKR and TCBAP were combined for the first time in this proof-of-concept case series. The preliminary outcomes indicated that this procedure is potentially a safe and effective alternative for this patient group despite the theoretical increase in risk of ascending infection through the skin-implant interface to the external environment. We suggest larger comparative series to further validate these results.

Transcutaneous bone-anchoring prosthesis with hip replacement: A novel treatment for amputees

Background Over the last two decades, Transcutaneous Bone-Anchored Prosthesis (TCBAP) has proven to be an effective alternative for prosthetic attachment for above knee amputees, particularly for individuals suffering from socket interface related complications. [1-17] Amputees with a very short femoral residuum (<15 cm) are at a considerable higher risk for these complications as well as high risk of implant failure, if they underwent a typical TCBAP due to the relatively small bony-implant contact leading to a need of a novel technique. Aim A. To describe the surgical procedure combining THR with TCBAP for the first time; and B. To present preliminary data on potential risks and benefits with assessment of clinical and functional outcomes at follow up Method We used a TCBAP connected to the stem of a Total Hip Replacement (THR) prosthesis enabling the femoral residuum and the hip joint to act as weight sharing structures by transferring the load directly to the pelvis. We performed a tri-polar THR connected to a custom made TCBAP at the first stage followed by creating a skin implant interface as a second stage. We retrospectively reviewed three cases of transfemoral amputations presenting with extremely short femoral residuum. Patients were assessed clinically and functionally including standard measures of health-related quality of life, amputee mobility predictor tool, ambulation tests and actual activity level. Progress was monitored for 6-24 months. Results Clinical outcomes including adverse events show no major complications. Functional outcomes improved for all participants as early as 6 months follow up. All cases were wheelchair bound preoperatively (K0 – AMPRO) improved to walking with One stick (K3 – AMPRO) at 3 months follow up. Discussion & Conclusion THR and TCBAP were combined for the first time in this proof-of-concept case series. The preliminary outcomes indicated that this procedure is potentially a safe and effective alternative despite the theoretical increase in risk of ascending infection through the skin-implant interface to the external environment for this patient group. We suggest larger comparative series to further validate these results.

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.

Errors in the knee joint forces and moments during gait depending on the foot and knee prosthetic components

Background Previously studies showed that inverse dynamics based on motion analysis and force-plate is inaccurate compared to direct measurements for individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA). Indeed, direct measurements can appropriately take into account the absorption at the prosthetic foot and the resistance at the prosthetic knee. [1-3] However, these studies involved only a passive prosthetic knee. Aim The objective of the present study was to investigate if different types of prosthetic feet and knees can exhibit different levels of error in the knee joint forces and moments. Method Three trials of walking at self-selected speed were analysed for 9 TFAs (7 males and 2 females, 47±9 years old, 1.76±0.1 m 79±17 kg) with a motion analysis system (Qualisys, Goteborg, Sweden), force plates (Kitsler, Winterthur, Switzerland) and a multi-axial transducer (JR3, Woodland, USA) mounted above the prosthetic knee [1-17]. TFAs were all fitted with an osseointegrated implant system. The prostheses included different type of foot (N=5) and knee (N=3) components. The root mean square errors (RMSE) between direct measurements and the knee joint forces and moments estimated by inverse dynamics were computed for stance and swing phases of gait and expressed as a percentage of the measured amplitudes. A one-way Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was performed (Statgraphics, Levallois-Perret, France) to analyse the effects of the prosthetic components on the RMSEs. Cross-effects and post-hoc tests were not analysed in this study. Results A significant effect (*) was found for the type of prosthetic foot on anterior-posterior force during swing (p=0.016), lateral-medial force during stance (p=0.009), adduction-abduction moment during stance (p=0.038), internal-external rotation moment during stance (p=0.014) and during swing (p=0.006), and flexion-extension moment during stance (p = 0.035). A significant effect (#) was found for the type of prosthetic knee on anterior-posterior force during swing (p=0.018) and adduction-abduction moment during stance (p=0.035). Discussion & Conclusion The RMSEs were larger during swing than during stance. It is because the errors on accelerations (as derived from motion analysis) become substantial with respect to the external loads. Thus, inverse dynamics during swing should be analysed with caution because the mean RMSEs are close to 50%. Conversely, there were fewer effects of the prosthetic components on RMSE during swing than during stance and, accordingly, fewer effects due to knees than feet. Thus, inverse dynamics during stance should be used with caution for comparison of different prosthetic components.

Bone-anchored prosthesis: Current developments worldwide and challenges

Background Individuals with limb amputation fitted with conventional socket-suspended prostheses often experience socket related discomfort leading to a significant decrease in quality of life. Most of these concerns can be overcome by surgical techniques enabling bone-anchored prostheses. In this case, the prosthesis is attached directly to the residual skeleton through a percutaneous implant (e.g., screw type fixation, press-fit implant).[46, 48, 51, 52, 77, 78] The aim of this study is to present the current advances in these surgical techniques worldwide with a strong focus on the current challenges. Methods The current advances will be extracted from a systematic literature review including approximately 40 articles. The outcomes measured will include the estimation of the population worldwide as well as the complications (e.g., infection, loosening, fractures, and breakage) and the benefits (e.g., functional outcomes, health-related quality of life).[5-19, 51-53, 55, 57, 58, 62, 73, 79] Results The population of individuals fitted with a bone-anchored prosthesis is approximately 550 worldwide. Publications focusing on infection are sparse. However, the rate of superficial infection is estimated at 20%. Deep infection occurs rarely. Loosening and peri-prosthetic fractures are fairly uncommon. Breakage of implant parts occurs regularly mainly due to fall. All studies reported a significant improvement in functional level and overall quality of life. Conclusions Several commercial implants are in developments in Europe and US. The number of procedures is consistently growing worldwide. This technique might be primary way to fit a prosthesis to young and active amputees by 2025.

Osteoimmunomodulation: A new aspect for the development and evaluation of bone biomaterials

This thesis successfully introduced the intellectual framework of immunology in the development of bone biomaterials. The project identified the regulatory role of biomaterials to the immune-response in terms of bone formation and healing of bone defects. The novel methods developed in the project will significantly change the ways of biomaterials assessment and evaluation.

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.

New evidence confirming the concept of floating skeleton

The team of authors and, particularly the senior authors, is known for their work focusing on osseointegration. Over the last 10 years, they have published some significant work that is highly regarded and cited by the community of researchers working on the development of osseointegrated fixations. Furthermore, Professor Pitkin is also acknowledged internationally for his fine experimental skills and ability to design research that is typically outside the square...

The development of a component to improve the loading safety of bone-anchored prostheses

Use of socket prostheses Currently, for individuals with limb loss, the conventional method of attaching a prosthetic limb relies on a socket that fits over the residual limb. However, there are a number of issues concerning the use of a socket (e.g., blisters, irritation, and discomfort) that result in dissatisfaction with socket prostheses, and these lead ultimately a significant decrease in quality of life. Bone-anchored prosthesis Alternatively, the concept of attaching artificial limbs directly to the skeletal system has been developed (bone anchored prostheses), as it alleviates many of the issues surrounding the conventional socket interface.Bone anchored prostheses rely on two critical components: the implant, and the percutaneous abutment or adapter, which forms the connection for the external prosthetic system (Figure 1). To date, an implant that screws into the long bone of the residual limb has been the most common intervention. However, more recently, press-fit implants have been introduced and their use is increasing. Several other devices are currently at various stages of development, particularly in Europe and the United States. Benefits of bone-anchored prostheses Several key studies have demonstrated that bone-anchored prostheses have major clinical benefits when compared to socket prostheses (e.g., quality of life, prosthetic use, body image, hip range of motion, sitting comfort, ease of donning and doffing, osseoperception (proprioception), walking ability) and acceptable safety, in terms of implant stability and infection. Additionally, this method of attachment allows amputees to participate in a wide range of daily activities for a substantially longer duration. Overall, the system has demonstrated a significant enhancement to quality of life. Challenges of direct skeletal attachment However, due to the direct skeletal attachment, serious injury and damage can occur through excessive loading events such as during a fall (e.g., component damage, peri-prosthetic fracture, hip dislocation, and femoral head fracture). These incidents are costly (e.g., replacement of components) and could require further surgical interventions. Currently, these risks are limiting the acceptance of bone-anchored technology and the substantial improvement to quality of life that this treatment offers. An in-depth investigation into these risks highlighted a clear need to re-design and improve the componentry in the system (Figure 2), to improve the overall safety during excessive loading events. Aim and purposes The ultimate aim of this doctoral research is to improve the loading safety of bone-anchored prostheses, to reduce the incidence of injury and damage through the design of load restricting components, enabling individuals fitted with the system to partake in everyday activities, with increased security and self-assurance. The safety component will be designed to release or ‘fail’ external to the limb, in a way that protects the internal bone-implant interface, thus removing the need for restorative surgery and potential damage to the bone. This requires detailed knowledge of the loads typically experienced by the limb and an understanding of potential overload situations that might occur. Hence, a comprehensive review of the loading literature surrounding bone anchored prostheses will be conducted as part of this project, with the potential for additional experimental studies of the loads during normal activities to fill in gaps in the literature. This information will be pivotal in determining the specifications for the properties of the safety component, and the bone-implant system. The project will follow the Stanford Biodesign process for the development of the safety component.

Osseointegrated total knee replacement connected to a lower limb prosthesis: 4 cases

Background and purpose — Osseointegrated implants are an alternative for prosthetic attachment in individuals with amputation who are unable to wear a socket. However, the load transmitted through the osseointegrated fixation to the residual tibia and knee joint can be unbearable for those with transtibial amputation and knee arthritis. We report on the feasibility of combining total knee replacement (TKR) with an osseointegrated implant for prosthetic attachment. Patients and methods — We retrospectively reviewed all 4 cases (aged 38–77 years) of transtibial amputations managed with osseointegration and TKR in 2012–2014. The below-the-knee prosthesis was connected to the tibial base plate of a TKR, enabling the tibial residuum and knee joint to act as weight-sharing structures. A 2-stage procedure involved connecting a standard hinged TKR to custom-made implants and creation of a skin-implant interface. Clinical outcomes were assessed at baseline and after 1–3 years of follow-up using standard measures of health-related quality of life, ambulation, and activity level including the questionnaire for transfemoral amputees (Q-TFA) and the 6-minute walk test. Results — There were no major complications, and there was 1 case of superficial infection. All patients showed improved clinical outcomes, with a Q-TFA improvement range of 29–52 and a 6-minute walk test improvement range of 37–84 meters. Interpretation — It is possible to combine TKR with osseointegrated implants.