ArticleDer Unfallchirurg2017
[Function of prosthesis components in lower limb amputees with bone-anchored percutaneous implants : Biomechanical aspects].
Article in Der Unfallchirurg, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiographic Imaging to improve frontal plane weight bearing symmetry and its impact on gait in transtibial bone anchored prosthesis users.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- [Functional rehabilitation after transfemoral amputation : Shaft prosthesis or endo-exo prosthesis?]Der Unfallchirurg · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBone anchorage of an artificial limb has been proven to be an alternative intervention for amputees when prosthesis use is seriously reduced because of stump problems. Little is known about how prosthesis components interact with bone and joints and which potential the optimum use provides with respect to quality of treatment of leg amputees.
objectiveDoes osseointegration influence the motor activity of residual limbs differently compared with socket prostheses? How should prosthesis components be aligned? What type of prosthetic knee joints should be preferred in transfemoral amputees? MATERIAL AND
methodsTransfer of biomechanical knowledge of socket prosthetics to bone-anchored prostheses. Pilot studies with a limited number of amputees.
resultsForce transmission at the interface between the prosthesis and residual limb stump is completely different for osseointegrated fixation and socket design; however, the number of muscles available for control remains unchanged. Because the iliotibial tract is missing, bending moments of the femur are expected to be greater. Prosthetic alignment is very critical for gait pattern and the basic rules seem to be the same as for socket design. The foot position determines the knee function for below-knee amputees. The position of the femur influences the gait pattern of above-knee amputees. The lowest risk of falls and best functional properties are shown by microprocessor controlled knee joints.
conclusionOsseointegrated leg prostheses have some biomechanical advantages over the socket design. Since rehabilitation quality is clearly affected the prosthetic alignment has to be done carefully and precisely. As a rule microprocessor controlled knee joints are indicated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.