Load bearing exercises and functional outcome of individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with OPRA fixation

Individuals with lower limb amputation fitted with an OPRA osseointegrated fixation are facing an extensive rehabilitation program including static load bearing exercises (LBE). The application of a suitable amount of stress stimulates osseointegration and prepares the bone to tolerate the forces and moments that will be incurred during activities of daily living (ADL. At present, the monitoring is typically carried out using a normal bathroom weighing scale. This scale provides information only on the magnitude of the vertical component of the applied force. The moment around the long axis of the fixation when the femur is perpendicular to the ground is not assessed and neither are the components of force and moment generated on the other two axes.

Spatio-temporal characteristics of locomotion and functional outcomes of individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with OPRA fixation

The conventional method of attachment of prosthesis involves a socket. A new method relying on osseointegrated fixation has emerged in the last decades. It has significant prosthetic benefits. Only a few studies demonstrated the biomechanical benefits. The ultimate aim of this study was to characterise the functional outcome of individuals with lower limb amputation fitted with osseointegrated fixation, which can be assess through temporal and spatial gait characteristics. The specific objective of this study was to present the key temporal and spatial gait characteristics of individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA).

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.

Repeatability of static load bearing exercises during rehabilitation of individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with osseointegrated implant

Bone-anchored prostheses, relying on implants to attach the prosthesis directly to the residual skeleton, are the ultimate resort for patients with transfemoral amputations (TFA) experiencing severe socket discomfort. The first patient receiving a bone-anchored prosthesis underwent the surgery in 1990 in the Sahlgrenska University Hospital (Sweden). To date, there are two commercially available implants: OPRA (Integrum, Sweden) and ILP (Orthodynamics, Germany). The key to success to this technique is a firm bone-implant bonding, depending on increasing mechanical stress applied daily during load bearing exercises (LBE). The loading data could be analysed through different biomechanical variables. The intra-tester reliability of these exercises will be presented here. Moreover the effect of increase of loading, axes of application of the load and body weight as well as the difference between force and moment variables will be discussed.

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.

Description of body posture during Static load bearing exercises for individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with bone-anchored prosthesis

The rehabilitation programs of bone-anchorage prostheses relying either on the OPRA (Integrum, Sweden) or the ILP (Orthodynamics, Germany) fixation involve some forms of static load bearing exercises (LBE). So far, most of biomechanical studies of these static LBEs focused on the direct measurements of the actual forces and moments applied on the OPRA fixation of individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA). To date, the proof-of-concept of an apparatus to conduct these kinetic measurements has been presented, along with some preliminary data. The understanding of the kinetic data is essential to improve rehabilitation programs as well as the design of upcoming loading frames. However, kinetic information alone is difficult to interpret without concomitant kinematic data. The purpose of this preliminary study was to introduce a qualitative analysis describing the different body postures during LBE for a group of TFAs.

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.

Bone-anchored prosthesis: Evidence that “gains” overcome the “pain”

Most of socket related discomforts leading to a significant decrease in quality of life of individuals with limb amputation can be overcome by surgical techniques enabling bone-anchored prostheses. To date, the OPRA two-stage procedure (i.e., S1, S2) is the most acknowledged treatment. However, surgical implantations of osseointegrated fixations are developing at an unprecedented pace worldwide.[1-18] Clearly, this option is becoming accessible to a wide range of individuals with limb amputations. The team led by Dr Rickard Branemark has published a number of landmark articles each focusing on a particular aspect (e.g., health related quality of life, functional outcomes, bone remodelling, infection rate). [1-3, 19-32] However, evidences presented in this prospective study are remarkable. Functional outcome, health-related quality of life and complications were considered concurrently for a large population (i.e., 51 participants) over an extended period of time (i.e., up to year follow up). Therefore, the “gain” and “pain” of the whole procedure were truly contrasted for the first time. The results confirmed that OPRA surgical and rehabilitation procedures improved significantly prosthetic use, mobility, global situation and fewer problems. Furthermore, the authors reported 47 episodes of infections for 63% (32) participants between post-op S1 and two years follow up. A total of 87% (41) were superficial infections recorded for 28 participants between post-op S2 and two years follow up, while 13% (6) were deep infections occurring for 4 participants during post-op S1 and S2. As expected, post-op S2 phase was the most prone to both infections. More importantly, the vast majority of infections were effectively treated with oral antibiotics. Clearly, this study provided definitive evidence that the benefits of OPRA fixation overcome complications. This article is also establishing reporting standards and benchmark data for future studies focusing on bone-anchored prostheses.

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.

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.

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.

Can the direct measurement of the load applied on the residuum of individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with bone-anchored prosthesis help to improve the rehabilitation program?

To strive to improve the rehabilitation program of individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with bone-anchored prosthesis based on data from direct measurements of the load applied on the residuum we first of all need to understand the load applied on the fixation. Therefore the load applied on the residuum was first directly measured during standardized activities of daily living such as straight line level walking, ascending and descending stairs and a ramp and walking around a circle. From measuring the load in standardized activities of daily living the load was also measured during different phases of the rehabilitation program such as during walking with walking aids and during load bearing exercises.[1-15] The rehabilitation program for individuals with a transfemoral amputation fitted with an OPRA implant relies on a combination of dynamic and static load bearing exercises.[16-20] This presentation will focus on the study of a set of experimental static load bearing exercises. [1] A group of eleven individuals with unilateral transfemoral amputation fitted with an OPRA implant participated in this study. The load on the implant during the static load bearing exercises was measured using a portable system including a commercial transducer embedded in a short pylon, a laptop and a customized software package. This apparatus was previously shown effective in a proof-of-concept study published by Prof. Frossard. [1-9] The analysis of the static load bearing exercises included an analysis of the reliability as well as the loading compliance. The analysis of the loading reliability showed a high reliability between the loading sessions indicating a correct repetition of the LBE by the participants. [1, 5] The analysis of the loading compliance showed a significant lack of axial compliance leading to a systematic underloading of the long axis of the implant during the proposed experimental static LBE.