One step closer into the design of fall protective device for individuals fitted with a bone-anchored prosthesis

The consequences of falls are often dreadful for individuals with lower limb amputation using bone-anchored prosthesis.[1-5] Typically, the impact on the fixation is responsible for bending the intercutaneous piece that could lead to a complete breakage over time. .[3, 5-8] The surgical replacement of this piece is possible but complex and expensive. Clearly, there is a need for solid data enabling an evidence-based design of protective devices limiting impact forces and torsion applied during a fall. The impact on the fixation during an actual fall is obviously difficult to record during a scientific experiment.[6, 8-13] Consequently, Schwartze and colleagues opted for one of the next best options science has to offer: simulation with an able-bodied participant. They recorded body movements and knee impacts on the floor while mimicking several plausible falling scenarios. Then, they calculated the forces and moments that would be applied at four levels along the femur corresponding to amputation heights.[6, 8-11, 14-25] The overall forces applied during the falls were similar regardless of the amputation height indicating that the impact forces were simply translated along the femur. As expected, they showed that overall moments generally increased with amputation height due to changes in lever arm. This work demonstrates that devices preventing only against force overload do not require considering amputation height while those protecting against bending moments should. Another significant contribution is to provide, for the time, the magnitude of the impact load during different falls. This loading range is crucial to the overall design and, more precisely, the triggering threshold of protective devices. Unfortunately, the analysis of only a single able-bodied participant replicating falls limits greatly the generalisation of the findings. Nonetheless, this case study is an important milestone contributing to a better understanding of load impact during a fall. This new knowledge will improve the treatment, the safe ambulation and, ultimately, the quality of life of individuals fitted with bone-anchored prosthesis.

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.

Evaluation framework to assess orthopaedic procedures

Introduction & aims The demand for evidence of efficacy of treatments in general and orthopaedic surgical procedures in particular is ever increasing in Australia and worldwide. The aim of this study is to share the key elements of an evaluation framework recently implemented in Australia to determine the efficacy of bone-anchored prostheses. Method The proposed evaluation framework to determine the benefit and harms of bone-anchored prostheses for individuals with limb loss was extracted from a systematic review of the literature including seminal studies focusing on clinical benefits and safety of procedures involving screw-type implant (e.g., OPRA) and press-fit fixations (e.g., EEFT, ILP, OPL). [1-64] Results The literature review highlighted that a standard and replicable evaluation framework should focus on: • The clinical benefits with a systematic recording of health-related quality of life (e.g., SF-26, Q-TFA), mobility predictor (e.g., AMPRO), ambulation abilities (e.g., TUG, 6MWT), walking abilities (e.g., characteristic spatio-temporal) and actual activity level at baseline and follow-up post Stage 2 surgery, • The potential harms with systematic recording of residuum care, infection, implant stability, implant integrity, injuries (e.g., falls) after Stage 1 surgery. There was a general consensus around the instruments to monitor most of the benefits and harms. The benefits could be assessed using a wide spectrum of complementary assessments ranging from subjective patient self-reporting to objective measurements of physical activity. However, this latter was assessed using a broad range of measurements (e.g., pedometer, load cell, energy consumption). More importantly, the lack of consistent grading of infections was sufficiently noticeable to impede cross-fixation comparisons. Clearly, a more universal grading system is needed. Conclusions Investigators are encouraged to implement an evaluation framework featuring the domains and instruments proposed above using a single database to facilitate robust prospective studies about potential benefits and harms of their procedure. This work is also a milestone in the development of national and international clinical outcome registries.

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.