ReviewAnnals of biomedical engineering2026
Tibial Bone-Anchored Prostheses: A Narrative Review of the Literature and Reflection on 10 Years of Surgical Practice.
Review in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewHistorically, bone-anchored prosthesis (BAP) treatment was developed for the treatment of individuals with a transfemoral amputation. However, increasing experience with osseointegration implant (OI) surgery has resulted in its use in individuals with a transtibial amputation. In this article, we describe the emergence and evolution of BAP treatment for individuals with a transtibial amputation, review the current literature, and report on 10 years of clinical experience at our center. RECENT
findingsThe first tibial OI cases experienced high failure rates due to infection and aseptic loosening. However, all the following published studies reported improvements to functional outcomes and low rates of major complications. In the past, there was a clear lack of fixed follow-up, longer term studies, and stratification of outcomes. At our center, we have treated a total of 124 patients with 133 tibial BAPs over the course of 10 years, starting in 2014, and followed up for a mean of 58 months, ranging from 9 to 131 months. Five different OI designs were used over this period, showing the evolution of design philosophies and adaptations to challenges over time. A total of 11 OIs failed/were removed for reasons such as implant breakage (2), chronic knee pain (2), early infection (3), late infection (2), failure of osseointegration (2). Tibial BAP treatment has proven increasingly safe with growing patient demand. Initial fears about failure of fixation/loosening seem unfounded due to optimization of the designs. Our current aim is to improve implant survival and to answer questions about: optimal patient selection, minimum area of osseointegration necessary, need for additional screw fixation, and optimal level of implant placement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41795045What 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.