SynthesisFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2024
Bone-anchored prostheses for transfemoral amputation: a systematic review of outcomes, complications, patient experiences, and cost-effectiveness.
Synthesis in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Outcomes of Bone-Anchored Versus Socket-Suspended Prostheses in Individuals With Transfemoral Amputation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Two-Arm Comparative Studies.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Quality of Life in Transfemoral Amputee Using Bone-Anchored Prostheses vs. Socket Prostheses: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Observational
- Lower limb osseointegrated prosthetics: are we standing on the edge of a new era?Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Review
- Clinical and psychological adjustment to prosthesis use in lower-limb amputees: focus on differences between traditional and high-technology rehabilitation.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2026Article
- Emerging Mechanisms and Biomarkers Associated with T-Cells and B-Cells in Autoimmune Disorders.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2025Review
- Evidence-based recommendation of a powered knee for transfemoral bone-anchored prostheses: A cross-sectional study.Canadian prosthetics & orthotics journal · 2025Article
- Use of a "Fascial-Sock" Technique to Manage the Stump and Stoma After Insertion of an Osseointegrated Implant in Transfemoral Amputees.JB & JS open accessArticle
- Preferences for Attachment Devices for Individuals with Lower-Limb Loss: A Discrete-Choice Study to Inform Regulatory Decisions.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Bone-anchored prostheses (BAP) are an advanced reconstructive surgical approach for individuals who had transfemoral amputation and are unable to use the conventional socket-suspension systems for their prostheses. Access to this technology has been limited in part due to the lag between the start of a new procedure and the availability of evidence that is required before making decisions about widespread provision. This systematic review presents as a single resource up-to-date information on aspects most relevant to decision makers, i.e., clinical efficacy, safety parameters, patient experiences, and health economic outcomes of this technology. Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted by an information specialist in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, the Core Collection of Web of Science, CADTH's Grey Matters, and Google Scholar up until May 31, 2023. Peer-reviewed original research articles on the outcomes of clinical effectiveness (health-related quality of life, mobility, and prosthesis usage), complications and adverse events, patient experiences, and health economic outcomes were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence and ROBINS-I, as appropriate. Results: Fifty studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 12 were excluded. Thirty-eight studies were finally included in this review, of which 21 reported on clinical outcomes and complications, 9 case series and 1 cohort study focused specifically on complications and adverse events, and 2 and 5 qualitative studies reported on patient experience and health economic assessments, respectively. The most common study design is a single-arm trial (pre-/post-intervention design) with varying lengths of follow-up. Discussion: The clinical efficacy of this technology is evident in selected populations. Overall, patients reported increased health-related quality of life, mobility, and prosthesis usage post-intervention. The most common complication is a superficial or soft-tissue infection, and more serious complications are rare. Patient-reported experiences have generally been positive. Evidence indicates that bone-anchored implants for prosthesis fixation are cost-effective for those individuals who face significant challenges in using socket-suspension systems, although they may offer no additional advantage to those who are functioning well with their socket-suspended prostheses.
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.