Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39624598›Full record

ArticleJB & JS open access

Transfemoral Osseointegration for Amputees with Well-Managed Diabetes Mellitus.

Jason S Hoellwarth, Shakib Al-Jawazneh, Atiya Oomatia, Kevin Tetsworth, Munjed Al Muderis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [Technological advances in amputation medicine].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  2. Lower extremity osseointegration for amputees with diabetes mellitus and vascular disease.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Jason S HoellwarthOsseointegration Limb Replacement Center, Limb Lengthening and Complex Reconstruction Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7065-0656
Shakib Al-JawaznehLimb Reconstruction Centre, Macquarie University Hospital, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5760-6466
Atiya OomatiaLimb Reconstruction Centre, Macquarie University Hospital, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5201-4058
Kevin TetsworthDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3069-4141
Munjed Al MuderisLimb Reconstruction Centre, Macquarie University Hospital, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The most common reason for lower-extremity amputations remains the management of complications of diabetes mellitus (DM) and/or peripheral vascular disease. Traditional socket prostheses remain the rehabilitation standard, although transcutaneous osseointegration for amputees (TOFA) is proving a viable alternative. Limited studies of TOFA for vascular amputees have been published, but no study has focused on TOFA for patients with DM, neglecting this important patient population. The primary aim of the present study exploring this potential care option was to report the frequencies and types of adverse events following TOFA for patients with well-controlled DM. The secondary aims were to report their mobility and quality-of-life changes. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of 17 consecutive patients with well-controlled DM who had undergone unilateral transfemoral TOFA from 2013 to 2019 and had been followed for at least 2 years. Outcomes were perioperative complications, additional surgery (soft-tissue refashioning, debridement, implant removal, periprosthetic fracture treatment), mobility (daily prosthesis wear hours, K-level, Timed Up and Go Test, 6-Minute Walk Test), and patient-reported outcomes (Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation, Short Form-36). Results: There were no perioperative systemic complications, deaths, or proximal amputations. Two patients (12%) sustained a periprosthetic fracture following a fall, managed by internal fixation with implant retention, and regained independent ambulation. Eight patients (47%) had additional surgery or surgeries for non-traumatic complications: 4 (24%) had soft-tissue refashioning, 3 (18%) had debridement, and 3 others had implant removal with subsequent revision osseointegration for aseptic loosening (1) or infection (2). The proportion of patients wearing their prosthesis at least 8 hours daily improved from 5 (36%) to 11 (79%) of 14 (p = 0.054). The proportion of patients who achieved at least K-level 2 improved from 6% to 94% (p < 0.001). Other changes were not significant. Conclusions: Contraindicating TOFA for all patients with DM seems draconian. Patients with well-controlled DM experienced significant mobility improvements, although additional surgery was somewhat common. Improvements in selection criteria or surgical technique to reduce risks are needed so that TOFA can be routinely considered for amputees with well-controlled DM. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Identifiers

PMID39624598
PMCPMC11596440

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.