Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25971241›Full record

Trial reportDer Orthopade2015

[Endo-exo prostheses following limb-amputation].

D-L Juhnke, H-H Aschoff

Abstract readClinical TrialEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Der Orthopade, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

D-L JuhnkeKlinik für Allgemein-, Gefäß- und Viszeralchirurgie, Martin-Luther-Krankenhaus, Caspar-Theyß-Str. 27-31, 14193, Berlin, Deutschland.
H-H Aschoff
Sana Klinikum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveRehabilitation of patients having undergone limb amputation is difficult due to problems related to poor socket fit, which often deteriorates comfort, gait and the ability to take part in everyday life and work. The endo-exo prosthesis has been an alternative provision for people having undergone lower limb amputation for reasons other than diabetes or peripheral vascular disease for more than 10 years. The system consists of an intramedullar, osseointegrated and skin perforating prosthesis, which is implanted in the remaining bone and has an abutment to allow the attachment of the external prosthetic part including the knee joint in the case of a trans-femoral amputation. The idea originates in findings of modern tooth-implantology and involves a two-step operation. This study focuses on one centre's experience with the endo-exo prostheses in Lübeck, Germany, to describe and discuss the reliability of this alternative treatment method after lower limb amputation. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis article presents the results of lower limb amputees operated on in Lübeck, Germany between 1999-2013. It focuses on theoretical aspects of osseointegration and different clinically-based findings using the endo-exo technique over the last decade.

results74 lower-limb amputees were treated with an endo-exo prosthesis until December 2013. There were only 4 verified intramedullar infections, yet there were many unplanned surgical revisions secondary to soft-tissue infections in the beginning. They were successfully encountered via clinically-based changes that were made concerning implant design, wound treatment and operative technique.

conclusionsSince 1990 a few groups have developed an innovative method that provides an alternative to traditional socket-type prostheses. This involves a skeletally anchored device that is inserted into the remaining stump and provides osseointegration into the bone. The distal part of the implant protrudes transcutaneously and allows attachment to a prosthetic limb. This creates a hard point where the forces are transmitted through the skeleton with a more physiological pathway because the bone becomes the force carrier again, closer in biomechanics to an able-bodied person. With long-term numbers that show successful osseointegration for more than 10 years it is evident that obligate bacterial colonization does not necessarily lead to an intramedullar infection. Especially short stumps that are difficult to treat with a socket can be successfully fitted with an endo-exo prosthesis. Amputees who would otherwise be bound to a wheelchair due to their challenging situation should specifically be regarded as potential profiteers of this novel treatment option.

Indexed as

Exoskeleton DeviceKnee ProsthesisAdolescentAdultAgedAmputation StumpsAmputation, SurgicalArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeEquipment Failure AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProsthesis DesignProsthesis ImplantationRecovery of Function

Identifiers

PMID25971241
OpenAlexW490999991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.