Literature DB >> 16281724

Socket versus bone-anchored trans-femoral prostheses: hip range of motion and sitting comfort.

K Hagberg1, E Häggström, M Uden, R Brånemark.   

Abstract

This is the first study to report on hip range of motion (ROM) among active prosthesis users, when wearing and not wearing a trans-femoral socket prosthesis and to compare with individuals rehabilitated with an osseointegrated bone-anchored prosthesis. In addition, discomfort when sitting with the prosthesis is reported in both groups. The study group all had a non-vascular amputation and were divided into those supplied with a socket prosthesis (S group) (n = 43, mean age 51 years, 74% men) or a bone-anchored prosthesis (OI group) (n = 20, mean age 46 years, 75% men). Active hip ROM was measured with a goniometer, and self-reported problems with discomfort when sitting were recorded. The hip motion decreased in all directions when wearing the socket prosthesis compared to without it (P < 0.001 for all directions), and 37% of the subjects had less than 90 degrees of hip flexion when wearing their prosthesis. Discomfort when sitting was reported among 44% (n = 19) in the S group and was more common among individuals with less than 90 degrees of hip flexion motion (P= 0.025). In the OI group, no restriction in hip motion was measured with the prosthesis, and no subject had less than 90 degrees of flexion and 5% (n = 1) reported discomfort when sitting. This study shows that a trans-femoral prosthetic socket significantly reduces the ROM of the hip and that discomfort when sitting is common among individuals wearing such prostheses. Further, the study confirms that individuals using a bone-anchored prosthesis have no restricted hip motion with the prosthesis and report very few problems with discomfort when sitting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16281724     DOI: 10.1080/03093640500238014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prosthet Orthot Int        ISSN: 0309-3646            Impact factor:   1.895


  28 in total

1.  Progression of bone ingrowth and attachment strength for stability of percutaneous osseointegrated prostheses.

Authors:  Sujee Jeyapalina; J Peter Beck; Roy D Bloebaum; Kent N Bachus
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Patients with unilateral transfemoral amputation treated with a percutaneous osseointegrated prosthesis: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  E Hansson; K Hagberg; M Cawson; T H Brodtkorb
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 5.082

3.  An animal model to evaluate skin-implant-bone integration and gait with a prosthesis directly attached to the residual limb.

Authors:  Brad J Farrell; Boris I Prilutsky; Robert S Kistenberg; John F Dalton; Mark Pitkin
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2013-12-23       Impact factor: 2.063

Review 4.  Osseointegrated Prosthetic Limb for the treatment of lower limb amputations : Experience and outcomes.

Authors:  Munjed Al Muderis; William Lu; Jiao Jiao Li
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 5.  The Compress® transcutaneous implant for rehabilitation following limb amputation.

Authors:  R L McGough; M A Goodman; R L Randall; J A Forsberg; B K Potter; B Lindsey
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.000

6.  A comparative finite-element analysis of bone failure and load transfer of osseointegrated prostheses fixations.

Authors:  P K Tomaszewski; N Verdonschot; S K Bulstra; G J Verkerke
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2010-03-23       Impact factor: 3.934

7.  Radiographic evaluation of bone adaptation adjacent to percutaneous osseointegrated prostheses in a sheep model.

Authors:  Sujee Jeyapalina; James Peter Beck; Kent N Bachus; Ornusa Chalayon; Roy D Bloebaum
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Osseointegrated titanium implants for limb prostheses attachments: infectious complications.

Authors:  Jonatan Tillander; Kerstin Hagberg; Lars Hagberg; Rickard Brånemark
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-05-15       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 9.  Design features of implants for direct skeletal attachment of limb prostheses.

Authors:  M Pitkin
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res A       Date:  2013-04-02       Impact factor: 4.396

10.  Kinetics of individual limbs during level and slope walking with a unilateral transtibial bone-anchored prosthesis in the cat.

Authors:  Joshua R Jarrell; Brad J Farrell; Robert S Kistenberg; John F Dalton; Mark Pitkin; Boris I Prilutsky
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2018-05-23       Impact factor: 2.712

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.