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.

Hip power analysis in individuals with transfemoral amputation: A different strategy different from stabilisation during gait stance

Introduction and Objectives Joint moments and joint powers during gait are widely used to determine the effects of rehabilitation programs as well as prosthetic fitting. Following the definition of power (dot product of joint moment and joint angular velocity) it has been previously proposed to analyse the 3D angle between both vectors, αMw. Basically, joint power is maximised when both vectors are parallel and cancelled when both vectors are orthogonal. In other words, αMw < 60° reveals a propulsion configuration (more than 50% of the moment contribute to positive power) while αMw > 120° reveals a resistance configuration (more than 50% of the moment contribute to negative power). A stabilisation configuration (less than 50% of the moment contribute to power) corresponds to 60° < αMw < 120°. Previous studies demonstrated that hip joints of able-bodied adults (AB) are mainly in a stabilisation configuration (αMw about 90°) during the stance phase of gait. [1, 2] Individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA) need to maximise joint power at the hip while controlling the prosthetic knee during stance. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that TFAs should adopt a strategy that is different from a continuous stabilisation. The objective of this study was to compute joint power and αMw for TFA and to compare them with AB. Methods Three trials of walking at self-selected speed were analysed for 8 TFAs (7 males and 1 female, 46±10 years old, 1.78±0.08 m 82±13 kg) and 8 ABs (males, 25±3 years old, 1.75±0.04, m 67±6 kg). The joint moments are computed from a motion analysis system (Qualisys, Goteborg, Sweden) and a multi-axial transducer (JR3, Woodland, USA) mounted above the prosthetic knee for TFAs and from a motion analysis system (Motion Analysis, Santa Rosa, USA) and force plates (Bertec, Columbus, USA) for ABs. The TFAs were fitted with an OPRA (Integrum, AB, Gothengurg, Sweden) osseointegrated implant system and their prosthetic designs include pneumatic, hydraulic and microprocessor knees. Previous studies showed that the inverse dynamics computed from the multi-axial transducer is the proper method considering the absorption at the foot and resistance at the knee. Results The peak of positive power at loading response (H1) was earlier and lower for TFA compared to AB. Although the joint power is lower, the 3D angle between joint moment and joint angular velocity, αMw, reveals an obvious propulsion configuration (mean αMw about 20°) for TFA compared to a stabilisation configuration (mean αMw about 70°) for AB. The peaks of negative power at midstance (H2) and of positive power at preswing / initial swing (H3) occurred later, lower and longer for TFA compared to AB. Again, the joint powers are lower for TFA but, in this case, αMw is almost comparable (with a time lag), demonstrating a stabilisation (almost a resistance for TFA, mean αMw about 120°) and a propulsion configuration, respectively. The swing phase is not analysed in the present study. Conclusion The analysis of hip joint power may indicate that TFAs demonstrated less propulsion and resistance than ABs during the stance phase of gait. This is true from a quantitative point of view. On the contrary, the 3D angle between joint moment and joint angular velocity, αMw, reveals that TFAs have a remarkable propulsion strategy at loading response and almost a resistance strategy at midstance while ABs adopted a stabilisation strategy. The propulsion configuration, with αMw close to 0°, seems to aim at maximising the positive joint power. The configuration close to resistance, with αMw far from 180°, might aim at unlocking the prosthetic knee before swing while minimising the negative power. This analysis of both joint power and 3D angle between the joint moment and the joint angular velocity provides complementary insights into the gait strategies of TFA that can be used to support evidence-based rehabilitation and fitting of prosthetic components.

Rationing in healthcare

Rationing healthcare in some form is inevitable, even in wealthy countries, because resources are scarce and demand for healthcare is always likely to exceed supply. This means that decision-makers must make choices about which health programs and initiatives should receive public funding and which ones should not. These choices are often difficult to make, particularly in Australia, because: - 1 Make explicit rationing based on a national decision-making tool (such as Multi-criteria Decision Analysis) standard process in all jurisdictions. - 2 Develop nationally consistent methods for conducting economic evaluation in health so that good quality evidence on the relative efficiency of various programs and initiatives is generated. - 3 Generate more economic evaluation evidence to inform rationing decisions. - 4 Revise national health performance indicators so that they include true health system efficiency indicators, such as cost-effectiveness. - 5 Apply the Comprehensive Management Framework used to evaluate items on the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and the Prosthesis List to accelerate disinvestment from low-value drugs and prostheses. - 6 Seek agreement among Commonwealth, state and territory governments to work together to undertake work similar to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.

The good, the bad and the ugly of bone-anchored prostheses: Guideline to assess true clinical outcomes

The aim of this study is to share the key elements of an evaluation framework to determine the true clinical outcomes of bone-anchored prostheses. Scientists, clinicians and policy makers are encouraged to implement their own evaluations relying on the proposed framework using a single database to facilitate reflective practice and, eventually, robust prospective studies.