Systematic review of the safety and efficacy of osseointegration prosthesis after limb amputation.
Published: 11th October 2018
Authors: S. K. Kunutsor, D. Gillatt, A. W. Blom
Osseointegration, an approach for direct skeletal attachment of a prosthesis to an amputated limb, may address many of the problems associated with socket prostheses. The safety of osseointegration remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to summarize evidence on functional and clinical outcomes, as well as adverse effects of osseointegration for patients with a limb amputation.
MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched to April 2018. Eligible studies were observational, case and qualitative studies, and RCTs conducted in patients with a limb amputation, who were managed with osseointegrated prostheses and had follow‐up data.
Twenty‐two eligible articles comprising 13 unique studies were included. No RCT was identified. Apart from three case reports that comprised one to five patients, the sample size of studies ranged from 11 to 100 participants. All relevant studies reported improvement in functional outcomes (walking ability, prosthetic use and mobility), satisfaction and quality of life following osseointegration, compared with their preoperative status or when using a conventional socket prosthesis. Infection rates ranged from 1 (95 per cent c.i. 0 to 5) to 77 (59 to 88) per cent. The majority of infections were described as low‐grade soft tissue or superficial infections related to the skin–implant interface, and were treated effectively with antibiotics. None of the studies reported additional amputation or death as a result of osseointegration.
Osseointegration after limb amputation improves prosthetic use, comfort when sitting, walking ability, mobility, gait and quality of life. However, it is associated with an increased risk of soft tissue infection.Full text
You may also be interested in
Authors: H. Shiwani, P. Baxter, E. Taylor, M. A. Bailey, D. J. A. Scott
Authors: R. Mouton, C. A. Rogers, R. A. Harris, R. J. Hinchliffe
Notes: Improves 30‐day survival
Long‐term outcomes of endovenous laser ablation and conventional surgery for great saphenous varicose veins.
Authors: T. Wallace, J. El‐Sheikha, S. Nandhra, C. Leung, A. Mohamed, A. Harwood et al.
Notes: EVLA lower recurrence at 5 years
Authors: A. J. A. Meershoek, G. J. de Borst
Predicting risk of rupture and rupture‐preventing reinterventions following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. BJS 2018; 105: 1294-1304.
Authors: I. Grootes, J. K. Barrett, P. Ulug, F. Rohlffs, S. J. Laukontaus, R. Tulamo et al.
Notes: Potential to tailor surveillance
Open or endovascular revascularization in the treatment of acute lower limb ischaemia. BJS 2018; 105: 1598-1606.
Authors: O. Grip, A. Wanhainen, K. Michaëlsson, L. Lindhagen, M. Björck
Notes: Endovascular may save lives
Effect of aspirin in vascular surgery in patients from a randomized clinical trial (POISE‐2). BJS 2018; 105: 1591-1597.
Authors: B. M. Biccard, A. Sigamani, M. T. V. Chan, D. I. Sessler, A. Kurz, J. G. Tittley et al.
Notes: No evidence to start or stop aspirin
Authors: P. A. Coughlin, J. H. F. Rudd
Cost‐effectiveness of population‐based vascular disease screening and intervention in men from the Viborg Vascular (VIVA) trial. BJS 2018; 105: 1283-1293.
Authors: R. Søgaard, J. S. Lindholt
Notes: Highly cost‐effective
Population‐based study of mortality and major amputation following lower limb revascularization. BJS 2018; 105: 1145-1154.
Authors: K. Heikkila, I. M. Loftus, D. C. Mitchell, A. S. Johal, S. Waton, D. A. Cromwell et al.
Notes: lower than previously estimated
Five‐year follow‐up of a randomized clinical trial comparing open surgery, foam sclerotherapy and endovenous laser ablation for great saphenous varicose veins. BJS 2018; 105: 686-691.
Authors: S. Vähäaho, K. Halmesmäki, A. Albäck, E. Saarinen, M. Venermo
Notes: More foam recurrences