Osseointegrated prosthetic limb for amputees: Over hundred cases

The Osseointegrated Prosthetic Limb (OPL) was introduced in 2011. Prior to its advent all prostheses consisted of stump and socket mechanisms which did not changed dramatically since Ambroise Pare lower limb prosthesis in 1525. These socket prostheses failed to address a few major requirements of normal gait. Our hypothesis was that using an Osseointegrated Prosthetic limb will result in superior function of daily activities, without compromising patients’ safety.The aims of this paper are (A) to describe the surgical procedure of the OPL; and (B) to present data on potential risks and benefits with assessment of clinical and functional outcomes at follow up

Osseointegrated prosthetic limb for amputees: Single stage surgery

The Osseointegrated Prosthetic Limb (OPL) was introduced in 2011. The socket prostheses failed to address a few major requirements of normal gait. Our hypothesis was that using an Osseointegrated Prosthetic limb will result in superior function of daily activities, without compromising patients’ safety. Traditionally this surgery was done as a two-stage procedure. The aims of this study were (A)to describe the single - surgical procedure of the OPL; and (B)To present data on potential risks and benefits with sssessment of clinical and functional outcomes at follow up.

Osseointegration for limb loss: Can Australia play a key role?

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. The aim of this study is to present the current advances in these surgical techniques worldwide with a strong focus on the developments in Australia and Queensland.

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].

Load applied on a bone-anchored transfemoral prosthesis: characterisation of a prosthesis : a pilot study

The objectives of this study were (A) to record the inner prosthesis loading during activities of daily living (ADL), (B) to present a set of variables comparing loading data, and (C) to provide an example of characterisation of two prostheses. The load was measured at 200 Hz using a multi-axial transducer mounted between the residuum and the knee of an individual with unilateral transfemoral amputation fitted with a bone-anchored prosthesis. The load was measured while using two different prostheses including a mechanically (PRO1) and a microprocessor controlled (PRO2) knee during six ADL. The characterisation of prosthesis was achieved using a set of variables split into four categories, including temporal characteristics, maximum loading, loading slopes and impulse. Approximately 360 gait cycles were analysed for each prosthesis. PRO1 showed a cadence improved by 19% and 7%, a maximum force on the long axis reduced by 11% and 19%, as well as an impulse reduced by 32% and 15% during descent of incline and stairs compared to PRO2, respectively. This work confirmed that the proposed apparatus and characterisation can reveal how changes of prosthetic components are translated into inner loading.

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.

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).

The cost and time effectiveness of osseointegration compared to the traditional socket prosthesis

Individuals with limb amputation fitted with conventional socket-suspended prostheses often experience socket related discomfort leading to a significant decrease in quality of life.[1-14] Most of these concerns can be overcome with osseointegration, a direct skeletal fixation method where the prosthetic componentry are directly attached to the fixation, resulting in the redundancy of the traditional socket system. There are two stages of osseointegration; Stage one, a titanium implant is inserted into the marrow space of residual limb bone and Stage two, a titanium extension is attached to the fixture. This surgical procedure is currently blooming worldwide, particularly within Queensland. Whilst providing improvements in quality of life, this new method also has potential to minimise the cost required for an amputee to ambulate during daily living. Thus, the aim of this project was to compare the differences in mean cost of services, cost of componentry and labour hours when using osseointegration compared to traditional socket-based prostheses. Data were extracted from Queensland Artificial Limb Services (QALS) database to determine cost of services, type of services and labour hours required to maintain a prosthetic limb. Five trans-femoral amputee male participants (age 46.4±10.1 yrs; height 175.4±16.3 cm; mass 83.8±14.0 kg; time since second stage 22.0± 8.1 mths) met inclusion criteria which was patient had to be more than 12 months post stage two osseointegration procedure. The socket and osseointegration prosthesis variables examined were the mean hours of labour, mean cost of services and mean cost of prosthetic componentry. Statistical analyses were conducted using an ANOVA. The results identified that there were only significant differences in the number of labour hours (p = 0.005) and cost of services (p = 0.021) when comparing the socket and osseointegration prosthetic type. These results identified that the cost of componentry were comparable between the two methods.

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]

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.