Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31201567›Full record

ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2019

Bionic reconstruction : Restoration of extremity function with osseointegrated and mind-controlled prostheses.

Martin Aman, Christopher Festin, Matthias E Sporer, Clemens Gstoettner, Cosima Prahm, Konstantin D Bergmeister, Oskar C Aszmann

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The medical cyborg concept.EMBnet.journal · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Martin AmanCD Laboratory for the Restoration of Extremity Function, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Christopher FestinCD Laboratory for the Restoration of Extremity Function, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Matthias E SporerCD Laboratory for the Restoration of Extremity Function, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Clemens GstoettnerCD Laboratory for the Restoration of Extremity Function, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Cosima PrahmCD Laboratory for the Restoration of Extremity Function, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Konstantin D BergmeisterDivision of Biomedical Research, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Oskar C AszmannCD Laboratory for the Restoration of Extremity Function, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. oskar.aszmann@meduniwien.ac.at.
Medical University of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLoss of an extremity at any level has a major impact on a patient's life. Using bionic reconstruction, extremity function can be restored and the patient reintegrated into daily life. Surgical procedures including selective nerve transfer and anchoring of prostheses into bone are combined with structured rehabilitation and modern prosthetic fitting. The patient is thereby able to use the prostheses intuitively and with multiple degrees of freedom.

methodsThis article presents the concept and approach for modern bionic reconstruction in detail and the relevant literature. The nerve transfer matrices for targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) and the concept of osseointegration to optimally fit a patient with a modern prosthesis are described in detail. As a clinical example, the case of a patient who suffered from traumatic amputation and subsequently received TMR in combination with an osseointegrated implant and structured rehabilitation is presented.

resultsUsing bionic reconstruction, basic hand functions can be restored and bimanual dexterity can expand the range of daily activities. Besides this approach to bionic reconstruction, its advantages and disadvantages are compared to hand transplantation. The limitations and perspectives of modern bionic reconstruction are also discussed.

conclusionsBionic reconstruction is a sophisticated method for restoring extremity function and nowadays can be considered a standard of care for all levels of upper extremity amputations. An interdisciplinary approach and structured rehabilitation are necessary to master prosthetic function to ultimately reintegrate patients into daily life.

Indexed as

Artificial LimbsOsseointegrationAmputation, SurgicalBionicsHumansMuscle, SkeletalPlastic Surgery ProceduresProsthesis DesignProsthesis ImplantationUpper ExtremityBionic reconstructionInterfaceOsseointegrationProsthesesRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID31201567
PMCPMC6908564
OpenAlexW2949326258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.