Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33204516›Full record

ReviewEFORT open reviews2020

Advanced techniques in amputation surgery and prosthetic technology in the lower extremity.

Gerhard M Hobusch, Kevin Döring, Rickard Brånemark, Reinhard Windhager

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EFORT open reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Reconstruction of the Tibial Stump After Fibulectomy.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Bone Bridge Transtibial Amputation by an Innovative Technique.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024
    Article
  7. The nonsalvageable tibia: amputation and prosthetics.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Gerhard M HobuschMedical University of Vienna, Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Vienna, Austria.
Kevin DöringMedical University of Vienna, Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Vienna, Austria.
Rickard BrånemarkGothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Reinhard WindhagerMedical University of Vienna, Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Vienna, Austria.
Medical University of Vienna · ATUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bone-anchored implants give patients with unmanageable stump problems hope for drastic improvements in function and quality of life and are therefore increasingly considered a viable solution for lower-limb amputees and their orthopaedic surgeons, despite high infection rates.Regarding diversity and increasing numbers of implants worldwide, efforts are to be supported to arrange an international bone-anchored implant register to transparently overview pros and cons.Due to few, but high-quality, articles about the beneficial effects of targeted muscle innervation (TMR) and regenerative peripheral nerve interface (RPNI), these surgical techniques ought to be directly transferred into clinical protocols, observations and routines.Bionics of the lower extremity is an emerging cutting-edge technology. The main goal lies in the reduction of recognition and classification errors in changes of ambulant modes. Agonist-antagonist myoneuronal interfaces may be a most promising start in controlling of actively powered ankle joints.As advanced amputation surgical techniques are becoming part of clinical routine, the development of financing strategies besides medical strategies ought to be boosted, leading to cutting-edge technology at an affordable price.Microprocessor-controlled components are broadly available, and amputees do see benefits. Devices from different manufacturers differ in gait kinematics with huge inter-individual varieties between amputees that cannot be explained by age. Active microprocessor-controlled knees/ankles (A-MPK/As) might succeed in uneven ground-walking. Patients ought to be supported to receive appropriate prosthetic components to reach their everyday goals in a desirable way.Increased funding of research in the field of prosthetic technology could enhance more high-quality research in order to generate a high level of evidence and to identify individuals who can profit most from microprocessor-controlled prosthetic components. Cite this article:

Indexed as

amputation surgerybone-anchored prosthesisprosthetic technology bionicsRPNITMR

Identifiers

PMID33204516
PMCPMC7608512
OpenAlexW3097378690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.