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.

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

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. However, the load transmitted through a typical TCBAP to the residual tibia and knee joint can be unbearable for transtibial amputees with knee arthritis. The aims of this study are (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.

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.

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).

Temporal and spatial gait characteristics of transfemoral amputees fitted with osseointegrated fixation: preliminary data

The conventional method of attachment of prosthesis involves on a socket. A new method relying on osseointegrated fixation is emerging. 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 transfemoral amputees fitted with osseointegrated fixation, which can be assess through temporal and spatial gait characteristics. The specific objective of this preliminary study was to present the key temporal and spatial gait characteristics.

Spatio-temporal characteristics of locomotion of transfemoral amputees fitted with bone-anchored prosthesis

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

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].

Dynamic input to determine hip joint moments, power and work on the prosthetic limb of transfemoral amputees: ground reactions vs knee reactions

Study Design: Comparative analysis Background: Calculations of lower limbs kinetics are limited by floor-mounted force-plates. Objectives: Comparison of hip joint moments, power and mechanical work on the prosthetic limb of a transfemoral amputee calculated by inverse dynamics using either the ground reactions (force-plates) or knee reactions (transducer). Methods: Kinematics, ground reactions and knee reactions were collected using a motion analysis system, two force-plates and a multi-axial transducer mounted below the socket, respectively. Results: The inverse dynamics using ground reactions under-estimated the peaks of hip energy generation and absorption occurring at 63 % and 76 % of the gait cycle (GC) by 28 % and 54 %, respectively. This method over-estimated a phase of negative work at the hip (from 37 %GC to 56 %GC) by 24%. It under-estimated the phases of positive (from 57 %GC to 72 %GC) and negative (from 73 %GC to 98 %GC) work at the hip by 11 % and 58%, respectively. Conclusions: A transducer mounted within the prosthesis has the capacity to provide more realistic kinetics of the prosthetic limb because it enables assessment of multiple consecutive steps and a wide range of activities without issues of foot placement on force-plates. CLINICAL RELEVANCE The hip is the only joint that an amputee controls directly to set in motion the prosthesis. Hip joint kinetics are associated with joint degeneration, low back pain, risks of fall, etc. Therefore, realistic assessment of hip kinetics over multiple gait cycles and a wide range of activities is essential.

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.

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.

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.