SynthesisOrthopaedic surgery2026
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.
Synthesis in Orthopaedic surgery, 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
Abstract
Bone-anchored prostheses (BAP) provide an alternative to traditional socket-suspended prostheses (SSP) for individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA) by addressing socket-related complications. While most previous studies, primarily single-arm trials, report positive outcomes with BAP, these findings may be overestimated due to lower preoperative baseline function among individuals using SSP prior to BAP implantation. This review aims to offer a more balanced comparison of functional and clinical outcomes between BAP and SSP by focusing exclusively on two-arm comparative studies. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted from December 2024 to May 2025, following PRISMA guidelines. Databases including PUBMED, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched. All studies meeting the inclusion criteria were cross-sectional in design. Primary outcomes included mobility (Timed Up and Go [TUG]; Activities-specific Balance Confidence [ABC]) and quality of life (Q-TFA domains). Secondary outcomes: gait parameters, hip range of motion (ROM), osseoperception, and costs. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I adapted for observational designs. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. Twelve studies (BAP n = 200; SSP n = 244) met criteria. Pooled analyses showed no significant differences for TUG (MD 0.16 s, 95% CI -2.09 to 2.41; I
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.