What Functional Outcomes Can Be Expected With Osseointegrated Prostheses in Transfemoral Amputations?

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-31 DOI:10.1097/CORR.0000000000003267
Benjamin K Potter, Julio A Rivera, Ashley B Anderson, Jason M Souza, Jonathan A Forsberg
{"title":"What Functional Outcomes Can Be Expected With Osseointegrated Prostheses in Transfemoral Amputations?","authors":"Benjamin K Potter, Julio A Rivera, Ashley B Anderson, Jason M Souza, Jonathan A Forsberg","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individuals who have undergone transfemoral amputation often have difficulty donning and utilizing a conventional socket prosthesis. Osseointegrated prostheses may alleviate certain issues, potentially resulting in better outcomes, but few prospective studies have either evaluated these outcomes or quantified the purported benefits.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>(1) Did patient-reported outcome measures improve between baseline and 2-year follow-up among those who underwent osseointegration surgery after transfemoral amputation? (2) What was the frequency and severity of early complications related to the osseointegration procedures? (3) What was the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in a global patient-reported outcome measure in this patient population?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between October 2017 and October 2023, we recruited 41 participants to undergo transfemoral osseointegration surgery treated with the Osseointegrated Prostheses for the Rehabilitation of Amputees implant system for patients who had trouble utilizing traditional, socket-based prostheses. Of those, 5% (2 of 41) did not undergo surgery, 2% (1 of 41) were lost to follow-up, and 2% (1 of 41) died before the final 2-year follow-up, leaving 90% (37 of 41) for analysis in this prospective, observational trial. Participants were asked to complete the validated Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) questionnaire before surgery as well as 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after the two-stage procedure. Thirty-seven participants (three women and 34 men; mean ± SD age 38 ± 10 years) reached the 24-month follow-up visit, and four patients were withdrawn. We tabulated the frequency and types of surgical complications that patients experienced and calculated the anchored-based MCID for the Q-TFA global score (0 to 100 maximum). The Q-TFA's global score is generated based on answers to three questions: \"How would you summarize your level of function with your current prosthesis?\", \"How would you summarize the problems you experience with your current prosthesis?\", and \"How would you summarize your overall situation as an amputee?\" Using the sum of the numerical scores for the three questions, we found the difference between the baseline and the final follow-up for the participants. Then, we took the first quartile of the difference to represent the median change in the lower 25% of the data and used this value as our MCID.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Scores in the study group improved in nearly all domains of the Q-TFA and PROMIS, including those related to prosthetic use, prosthetic mobility, and physical function (all p < 0.05). Patients developed superficial infections in 29% (15 of 51) of implanted limbs, all of which were treated successfully with antibiotics alone; 7 patients developed deep infections, only 1 of which involved the bone and implant. The anchor-based MCID in the Q-TFA global score was calculated as 17 of 100 for this study population.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Functional patient-reported outcomes improved in multiple domains among our patient cohort who underwent osseointegration surgery after transfemoral amputation, demonstrating the promise of this technology for patients with unsatisfactory function using conventional, socket-based prostheses. Infections and other complications were lower than in prior studies of osseointegration following limb loss. The novel MCID that we report can be used to determine whether patients have clinically important improvement in future osseointegration surgery studies comparing results between different implants, surgical techniques, and patient populations.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level II, therapeutic study.</p>","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":" ","pages":"513-523"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11827995/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003267","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Individuals who have undergone transfemoral amputation often have difficulty donning and utilizing a conventional socket prosthesis. Osseointegrated prostheses may alleviate certain issues, potentially resulting in better outcomes, but few prospective studies have either evaluated these outcomes or quantified the purported benefits.

Questions/purposes: (1) Did patient-reported outcome measures improve between baseline and 2-year follow-up among those who underwent osseointegration surgery after transfemoral amputation? (2) What was the frequency and severity of early complications related to the osseointegration procedures? (3) What was the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in a global patient-reported outcome measure in this patient population?

Methods: Between October 2017 and October 2023, we recruited 41 participants to undergo transfemoral osseointegration surgery treated with the Osseointegrated Prostheses for the Rehabilitation of Amputees implant system for patients who had trouble utilizing traditional, socket-based prostheses. Of those, 5% (2 of 41) did not undergo surgery, 2% (1 of 41) were lost to follow-up, and 2% (1 of 41) died before the final 2-year follow-up, leaving 90% (37 of 41) for analysis in this prospective, observational trial. Participants were asked to complete the validated Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) questionnaire before surgery as well as 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after the two-stage procedure. Thirty-seven participants (three women and 34 men; mean ± SD age 38 ± 10 years) reached the 24-month follow-up visit, and four patients were withdrawn. We tabulated the frequency and types of surgical complications that patients experienced and calculated the anchored-based MCID for the Q-TFA global score (0 to 100 maximum). The Q-TFA's global score is generated based on answers to three questions: "How would you summarize your level of function with your current prosthesis?", "How would you summarize the problems you experience with your current prosthesis?", and "How would you summarize your overall situation as an amputee?" Using the sum of the numerical scores for the three questions, we found the difference between the baseline and the final follow-up for the participants. Then, we took the first quartile of the difference to represent the median change in the lower 25% of the data and used this value as our MCID.

Results: Scores in the study group improved in nearly all domains of the Q-TFA and PROMIS, including those related to prosthetic use, prosthetic mobility, and physical function (all p < 0.05). Patients developed superficial infections in 29% (15 of 51) of implanted limbs, all of which were treated successfully with antibiotics alone; 7 patients developed deep infections, only 1 of which involved the bone and implant. The anchor-based MCID in the Q-TFA global score was calculated as 17 of 100 for this study population.

Conclusion: Functional patient-reported outcomes improved in multiple domains among our patient cohort who underwent osseointegration surgery after transfemoral amputation, demonstrating the promise of this technology for patients with unsatisfactory function using conventional, socket-based prostheses. Infections and other complications were lower than in prior studies of osseointegration following limb loss. The novel MCID that we report can be used to determine whether patients have clinically important improvement in future osseointegration surgery studies comparing results between different implants, surgical techniques, and patient populations.

Level of evidence: Level II, therapeutic study.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经股骨截肢中骨整合假体的功能预后如何?
背景:接受过经股截肢的患者通常难以穿戴和使用传统的假体。骨整合假体可以缓解某些问题,可能导致更好的结果,但很少有前瞻性研究评估这些结果或量化所声称的益处。问题/目的:(1)患者报告的结果在基线和2年随访期间是否改善了经股截肢术后骨整合手术的患者?(2)与骨整合手术相关的早期并发症的频率和严重程度是多少?(3)在该患者群体中,在全球患者报告的结果测量中,最小临床重要差异(MCID)是什么?方法:在2017年10月至2023年10月期间,我们招募了41名参与者接受经股骨骨整合手术,采用骨整合假体治疗截肢者康复植入系统,用于使用传统的基于骨槽的假体的患者。其中,5%(2 / 41)没有接受手术,2%(1 / 41)失去随访,2%(1 / 41)在最后2年随访前死亡,剩下90%(37 / 41)在这项前瞻性观察性试验中进行分析。参与者被要求在手术前以及两阶段手术后3、6、12和24个月完成经验证的经股骨截肢者问卷(Q-TFA)和患者报告的结果测量信息系统(PROMIS)问卷。37名参与者(3名女性和34名男性;平均±SD年龄(38±10岁)随访24个月,4例患者退出。我们将患者经历的手术并发症的频率和类型制成表格,并计算基于锚定的MCID的Q-TFA整体评分(0到100最大值)。Q-TFA的整体评分是根据对三个问题的回答得出的:“你如何总结你目前使用假肢的功能水平?”,“你如何总结你目前使用假肢遇到的问题?”,以及“你如何总结你作为截肢者的总体情况?”使用三个问题的数值分数的总和,我们发现了参与者的基线和最终随访之间的差异。然后,我们采用差异的第一个四分位数来表示数据中较低25%的中位数变化,并将该值用作我们的MCID。结果:研究组在Q-TFA和PROMIS的几乎所有领域得分均有提高,包括与假肢使用、假肢活动能力和身体功能相关的得分(均p < 0.05)。51例植入式肢体中有15例(29%)发生浅表感染,所有患者均成功使用抗生素治疗;7例患者发生深部感染,其中1例涉及骨和种植体。在本研究人群中,Q-TFA全球评分中基于锚定的MCID计算为17(满分为100)。结论:在我们的患者队列中,经股骨截肢后接受骨整合手术的患者报告的功能结果在多个领域得到改善,证明了该技术对使用传统的基于骨窝的假体功能不满意的患者的前景。感染和其他并发症比先前研究中肢体丧失后骨整合的发生率低。我们报道的新型MCID可用于确定患者在未来的骨整合手术研究中是否有临床重要的改善,比较不同种植体、手术技术和患者群体的结果。证据等级:II级,治疗性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
11.90%
发文量
722
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® is a leading peer-reviewed journal devoted to the dissemination of new and important orthopaedic knowledge. CORR® brings readers the latest clinical and basic research, along with columns, commentaries, and interviews with authors.
期刊最新文献
Most Contemporary TKA Implant Systems Meet International Benchmark Survivorship Standards: Evidence From a US Registry. Letter to the Editor: How Does Anterior Vertebral Body Tethering Compare To Posterior Spinal Fusion for Thoracic Idiopathic Scoliosis? A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial. What Is the Association Between Adding Genicular Nerve Block to Adductor Canal Block and Infiltration Between the Popliteal Artery and Capsule of the Knee and Perioperative Outcomes After Primary TKA? Reply to the Letter to the Editor: Your Best Life: Aging with Grace-Keys to Success in the Autumn of Life. Letter to the Editor: Guest Editorial: Recalling a Recall.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1