Munjed M Al Muderis1,2,3, William Y Lu4, Jiao Jiao Li4, Kenton Kaufman5, Michael Orendurff6, M Jason Highsmith7,8,9, Paul A Lunseth10, Jason T Kahle11. 1. The Australian School of Advanced Medicine, Macquarie University, Macquarie, New South Wales, Australia. 2. School of Medicine, University of Notre Dame Australia, Auburn, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Norwest Private Hospital, Orthopedic Surgery Department, Bella Vista, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering Research Unit, School of AMME, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Mayo Clinic, Motion Analysis Laboratory, Rochester, MN. 6. Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford, Motion and Performance Sports Laboratory, Palo Alto, CA. 7. Extremity Trauma & Amputation Center of Excellence (EACE), US Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. 8. School of Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. 9. US Army Reserves, 319th Minimal Care Detachment, Tampa, FL. 10. Department of Orthopedics, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. 11. OP Solutions, Tampa, FL.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The current standard of care for an amputee is a socket-based prostheses. An osseointegrated implant (OI) is an alternative for prosthetic attachment. Osseointegration addresses reported problems related to wearing a socket interface, such as skin issues, discomfort, diminished function, quality of life, prosthetic use, and abandonment. The purpose of this report is to systematically review current literature regarding OI to identify and categorize the reported clinically relevant outcome measures, rate the quality of available evidence, and synthesize the findings. DATA SOURCES: A multidisciplinary team used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methods. Search methodology was based on identifying clinically relevant articles. Three databases were searched: PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: Clinical studies with aggregated data reporting at least 1 clinically relevant outcome measure were included. DATA EXTRACTION: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criterion was used for critical appraisal and recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified 21 clinically relevant observational studies. Outcome measures were categorized into the following 9 categories: vibratory stimulation, complications, biomechanics, economics, patient-reported outcome measures, electromyography, x-ray, physical functional performance, and energy consumption. This systematic review consisted of Level III and IV observational studies. Homogeneous outcome measures with strong psychometric properties across prospective studies do not exist to date. Higher-level, prospective, randomized, long-term, clinically relevant trials are needed to prove efficacy of OI compared with socket prosthetic attachment. Osseointegration was at least equivalent to sockets in most studies. In some cases, it was superior. Osseointegration represents a promising alternative to socket prosthetic attachments for extremity amputees. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
OBJECTIVES: The current standard of care for an amputee is a socket-based prostheses. An osseointegrated implant (OI) is an alternative for prosthetic attachment. Osseointegration addresses reported problems related to wearing a socket interface, such as skin issues, discomfort, diminished function, quality of life, prosthetic use, and abandonment. The purpose of this report is to systematically review current literature regarding OI to identify and categorize the reported clinically relevant outcome measures, rate the quality of available evidence, and synthesize the findings. DATA SOURCES: A multidisciplinary team used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methods. Search methodology was based on identifying clinically relevant articles. Three databases were searched: PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: Clinical studies with aggregated data reporting at least 1 clinically relevant outcome measure were included. DATA EXTRACTION: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criterion was used for critical appraisal and recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified 21 clinically relevant observational studies. Outcome measures were categorized into the following 9 categories: vibratory stimulation, complications, biomechanics, economics, patient-reported outcome measures, electromyography, x-ray, physical functional performance, and energy consumption. This systematic review consisted of Level III and IV observational studies. Homogeneous outcome measures with strong psychometric properties across prospective studies do not exist to date. Higher-level, prospective, randomized, long-term, clinically relevant trials are needed to prove efficacy of OI compared with socket prosthetic attachment. Osseointegration was at least equivalent to sockets in most studies. In some cases, it was superior. Osseointegration represents a promising alternative to socket prosthetic attachments for extremity amputees. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: Carolyn E Taylor; Yue Zhang; Yuqing Qiu; Heath B Henninger; K Bo Foreman; Kent N Bachus Journal: Gait Posture Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 2.840
Authors: Jason S Hoellwarth; Kevin Tetsworth; John Kendrew; Norbert Venantius Kang; Oscar van Waes; Qutaiba Al-Maawi; Claudia Roberts; Munjed Al Muderis Journal: Bone Joint J Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 5.082
Authors: Alison M Karczewski; Weifeng Zeng; Lindsay M Stratchko; Kent N Bachus; Samuel O Poore; Aaron M Dingle Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 5.152