ReviewJournal of prosthetics and orthotics : JPO2026
A Scoping Review on Bone Mass Status in Individuals with Transfemoral Amputation.
Review in Journal of prosthetics and orthotics : JPO, 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
Background: Deterioration of bone mineral density (BMD) in the residual femur after a transfemoral amputation (TFA) has been reported over the past five decades, with various potential explanations described in the literature. BMD loss is a critical risk factor of fracture and hence an important clinical concern for prosthesis users. Objectives: This scoping review audited in vivo imaging studies that focused on BMD in individuals with TFA, with the aim to synthesize the status of knowledge on this topic, report on the mechanisms related to BMD status as hypothesized in the reviewed literature, and review BMD outcomes separately for prosthetic socket and bone-anchored suspension. Methods: Three databases (Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science) were searched on December 1, 2024. Search keywords covered terms that reference bone mineralization (BMD, osteopenia, and osteoporosis) and TFA. Data were extracted for analysis and grouped according to reported prosthesis suspension for analysis. Results: In total, 244 articles were screened, with 20 ultimately reviewed. Articles were published between 1969 and 2024. Fourteen articles reported the use of socket prosthesis and six used bone-anchored devices. The former group consistently reported BMD loss, while the latter presented maintenance or improvements. The socket prosthesis cohort was younger in age compared to bone anchored (range 24-73 vs. 47-58 years). Proposed reasons for BMD loss included disuse atrophy, bedrest post-surgery, gait asymmetry, and prosthesis influence. Conclusions: Articles reporting BMD status using socket prosthesis consistently reported demineralization despite interventions, with no consensus on the mechanical cause of BMD loss. Further, the bone-anchored group tended to demonstrate improvements in limb loading symmetry during ambulation and higher levels of bone loading compared to prosthetic socket use. Clinical relevance: The residual femur in persons with TFA has demonstrated bone demineralization, which appears to be less prevalent in bone-anchored devices compared to socket use. These findings warrant further analysis of the effects of prosthetic socket use on bone demineralization in persons with TFA.
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.