Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36313974›Full record

ArticleJournal of orthopaedic translation2023

Osseointegrated prostheses for the rehabilitation of patients with transfemoral amputations: A prospective ten-year cohort study of patient-reported outcomes and complications.

Kerstin Hagberg, Shadi Afarin Ghasemi Jahani, Omar Omar, Peter Thomsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of orthopaedic translation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [Technological advances in amputation medicine].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Kerstin HagbergDepartment of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Shadi Afarin Ghasemi JahaniDepartment of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Omar OmarDepartment of Biomaterials, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Peter ThomsenDepartment of Biomaterials, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Osseointegrated implants for patients with transfemoral amputations (TFAs) are a novel treatment under development, and prospective long-term evidence is lacking. The objectives were to determine patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complications after ten years compared to before treatment and to compare the first five-year period with the later five-year period with regard to the outcomes. Methods: In a nonrandomized, prospective cohort study, patients with TFAs treated between 1999 and 2007 with the Osseointegrated Prosthesis for the Rehabilitation of Amputees (OPRA) system (n ​= ​51) (28 men/23 women; mean age at amputation: 32 years old; mean age at treatment: 44 years old in a single university hospital were followed for ten years. PROs included the Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA, four scores 0-100) and the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36, ten scores 0-100) and were answered before treatment and until the ten-year follow-up after treatment. Analyses of differences in PRO scores were conducted using Wilcoxon's signed rank test. The implant survival and revision-free rates with respect to adverse events (implant revision, mechanical complications, and deep infections) were presented as Kaplan-Meier graphs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The incidences of events per ten and five person-years were calculated. Spearman's correlation analysis was used for analyses of associations between adverse events. Results: PROs showed statistically significant mean improvements between baseline and the ten-year follow-up with regard to all Q-TFA scores: the prosthetic use score (+36), prosthetic mobility score (+18), problem score (-28) and global score (+38) (all p ​< ​0.001), and the SF-36 physical functioning score (+26, p ​< ​0.001) and physical component score (+6, p ​< ​0.01). No PROs showed a statistically significant deterioration. Over the ten years, 12 patients were lost (one lost to follow-up, one dropped out of the study, two died, and eight had implants removed (four before five years and four between five and ten years). At ten years, the revision-free survival rates were 83% (CI: 69%-91%), 65% (CI: 49%-77%) and 17% (CI: 7%-29%) for implant revision, deep infection and mechanical complications, respectively. Mechanical complications, 3.9 per 10 person-years (CI: 2.2-5.1) constituted the most common serious adverse event and were more common during the last five years than during the first five years (p ​< ​0.001). No significant difference in the incidence of deep infections was observed between the earlier and the later five-year periods: 0.3 per 5 person-years (CI: 0.1-0.5) Conclusion: Improved PROs were demonstrated ten years after the introduction of a novel principle for bone anchorage of amputation prostheses. Nevertheless, an increasing rate of mechanical complications is of concern.

Indexed as

Adverse effectsBone-anchored prosthesisOsseointegrationPatient-reported outcome measuresPercutaneousQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID36313974
PMCPMC9588992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.