Osseoperception in transcutaneous osseointegrated prosthetic systems (TOPS) after transfemoral amputation: a prospective study

Single-Stage Press-Fit Osseointegration of the Radius and Ulna for Rehabilitation After Trans-Forearm Amputation

Background

Upper limb (UL) amputation is disabling. ULs are necessary for many domains of life1, and few effective motor and sensory replacements are accessible2. Approximately 41,000 people in the United States have UL amputation proximal to the fingers3, two-thirds of (all) traumatic amputations are UL4, and 80% of UL amputations are performed for trauma-related etiologies5. Socket prosthesis (SP) abandonment remains high because of the lack of sensation, limited prosthesis control, perceived weight, and difficulty comfortably wearing the SP6. Transcutaneous osseointegration7,8 surgically inserts a bone-anchored implant, passed through a transcutaneous portal to attach a terminal device, improving amputee rehabilitation by reducing perceived weight, conferring osseoperception9, and increasing wear time10. Without the socket, all residual skin and musculature remain available for transcutaneous myoelectrodes. The present article describes single-stage radius and ulna press-fit osseointegration (PFOI) after trans-forearm amputation.

Description

This technique resembles a lower-extremity PFOI11,12. Importantly, at-risk nerves and vessels are different, and implant impaction must be gentler as a result. The surgery is indicated for patients who are dissatisfied with SP rehabilitation or declining alternative rehabilitative options, and who are motivated and enabled to procure, train with, and utilize a forearm prosthesis. An engaged prosthetist is critical. Surgical steps are exposure, bone-end and canal preparation, first implant insertion (in the operative video shown, in the radius), purse-string muscle closure, confirmation that radius-ulna motion remains, performing the prior steps for the other bone (in the video, the ulna), and closure (including potential nerve reconstruction, soft-tissue contouring, and portal creation). Although the patient in the operative video did not require nerve procedures to address pain or to create targets for transcutaneous myoelectrodes, targeted muscle reinnervation or a regenerative peripheral nerve interface procedure could be performed following exposure.

Alternatives

Alternatives include socket modification, bone lengthening and/or soft-tissue contouring13, Krukenberg-type reconstructions14, or accepting the situation. An alternative implant is a screw-type osseointegration implant. Our preference for press-fit implants is based on considerations such as our practice's 12-year history of >1,000 PFOI surgeries; that the screw-type implant requires sufficient cortical thickness for the threads15, which is compromised in some patients; the lower cost per implant; that the procedure is performed in 1 instead of 2 surgical episodes15,16; and the documented suitability of press-fit implants for patients with challenging anatomy or comorbidities17-19.

Rationale

PFOI can be provided for amputees having difficulty with socket wear. PFOI usually provides superior prosthesis stability, which can confer better prosthesis control versus nonoperative and other operative options in patients expressing dissatisfaction for reasons such as those mentioned above, or for poor fit, compromised energy transfer, skin pinching, compression, and abrasions. For patients who want myoelectric control of their prosthesis but who are unable because the optimal myoelectric location is obstructed by the socket, osseointegration may provide access for the electrodes by eliminating the socket.

Expected Outcomes

Only 3 trans-forearm osseointegration20-22 publications totaling 10 limbs could be identified, limiting the ability to determine generalizable outcomes. Osseointegrated prostheses, being skeletally anchored, feel lighter to patients than SPs, which should confer better outcomes. In 1 patient, multiple implant fractures and infection prompted additional surgeries. Periprosthetic bone fractures and non-infectious loosening have not been documented for UL osseointegration.

Important Tips

Osseointegration eliminates the socket, relieving socket-based pain. However, neurogenic pain relief requires specific nerve procedures.Osseointegration provides a prosthesis connection. Nerve- or muscle-based prosthesis control requires separate, potentially integrated planning.Osseointegrated prostheses confer osseoperception (i.e., mechanical force transmission), not "normal" skin-mediated afferent sensation (i.e., light touch, temperature, pain) or native proprioception.Prostheses must be individualized to the patient's elbow flexion and radioulnar rotation. An attentive prosthetist must be ensured preoperatively.Achieving the demonstrated outcomes requires more therapy and retraining than walking with an osseointegrated lower-extremity prosthesis. Patients must expect at least several months of spending multiple hours daily engaging in self-directed rehabilitation.Prosthesis utilization decision aids23 may minimize non-beneficial surgeries.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

UL = upper limbSP = socket prosthesisPFOI = press-fit osseointegrationperi-pros fx = periprosthetic fractureMRI = magnetic resonance imagingCT = computed tomography.

Impact of topography and added TiN-coating on adult human dermal fibroblasts after seeding on titanium surface in-vitro

Complications of transcutaneous osseointegrated prosthetic systems (TOPS) focus on the metal-cutaneous interface at the stoma. Besides pain due to scare tissue as well as undefined neuropathic disorders, there is high evidence that the stoma presents the main risk causing hypergranulation and ascending infection. To restore the cutaneous barrier function in this functional area, soft-tissue on- or in-growth providing a vital and mechanically stable bio-artificial conjunction is considered a promising approach. In this study we assessed viability and proliferation of adult human dermal fibroblasts (HDFa) on modifications of a standard prosthetic titanium surface. Un-coated (TiAl6V4) as well as a titanium-nitrite (TiN) coated additive manufactured porous three-dimensional surface structures (EPORE®) were seeded with HDFa and compared to plain TiAl6V4 and polystyrene surfaces as control. Cell viability and proliferation were assessed at 24 h and 7 days after seeding with a fluorescence-based live-dead assay. Adhesion and cell morphology were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy at the respective measurements. Both EPORE® surface specifications revealed a homogenous cell distribution with flat and spread cell morphology forming filopodia at both measurements. Proliferation and trend to confluence was seen on un-coated EPORE® surfaces with ongoing incubation but appeared substantially lower on the TiN-coated EPORE® specification. While cell viability on both EPORE® specifications was comparable to plain TiAL6V4 and polystyrene controls, cell proliferation and confluence were less pronounced when compared to controls. The EPORE® topography allows for fibroblast adhesion and viability in both standard TiAl6V4 and - to a minor degree - TiN-coated specifications as a proof of principle.

Bone-anchored prostheses for lower limb amputation in a French cohort with 1-15 years of follow-up: implant survival rates, mechanical complications, and reported outcomes

PURPOSE

To evaluate the implant survival rate, mechanical complications, and reported patient outcomes of bone-anchored prostheses for patients with lower limb amputation in France after 1-15 years of follow-up.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent surgery at a single center in France between 2007 and 2021. The primary outcomes were the implant survival rate and functional scores assessed by the Questionnaire for Transfemoral Amputees (Q-TFA). Secondary outcomes were adverse events that occurred during follow-up.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 20 bone-anchored prostheses in 17 patients. The main level of amputation was transfemoral (82%, n = 14). The main reason for amputation was trauma (n = 15). The mean age at amputation was 32 (range 15-54) years, and the mean age at the first stage of osseointegration was 41 (range 21-58) years. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed respective survival rates of 90%, 70%, and 60% at 2, 10, and 15 years. All Q-TFA scores were significantly improved at last the follow-up. Eleven patients (65%) experienced mechanical complications. In total, 37 infectious events occurred in 13 patients (76%), mainly comprising stage 1 infections (68%, n = 25). Only two cases of septic loosening occurred (12%), leading to implant removal.

CONCLUSION

This is the first French cohort of bone-anchored prostheses and among the series with the longest follow-up periods. The findings indicate that bone-anchored prostheses are safe and reliable for amputee patients who have difficulties with classic prostheses.

Transcutaneous Osseointegrated Prosthesis Systems (TOPS) for Rehabilitation After Lower Limb Loss: Surgical Pearls

Background

The biology of osseointegration of any intramedullary implant depends on the design, the press-fit anchoring, and the loading history of the endoprosthesis. In particular, the material and surface of the endoprosthetic stem are designed to stimulate on- and in-growth of bone as the prerequisite for stable and long-lasting integration1-8. Relative movement between a metal stem and the bone wall may stimulate the formation of a connective-tissue interface, thereby increasing the risk of peri-implant infections and implant loss9-12. The maximum achievable press-fit (i.e., the force closure between the implant and bone wall) depends on the diameter and length of the residual bone and thus on the amputation level. Beyond this, the skin-penetrating connector creates specific medical and biological challenges, especially the risk of ascending intramedullary infections. On the one hand, bacterial colonization of the skin-penetrating area (i.e., the stoma) with a gram-positive taxon is obligatory and almost impossible to avoid9,10. On the other hand, a direct structural and functional connection between the osseous tissue and the implant, without intervening connective tissue, has been shown to be a key for infection-free osseointegration11,12.

Description

We present a 2-step implantation process for the standard Endo-Fix Stem (ESKA Orthopaedic Handels) into the residual femur and describe the osseointegration of the prosthesis13. In addition, we demonstrate the single-step implantation of a custom-made short femoral implant and a custom-made humeral BADAL X implant (OTN Implants) in a patient who experienced a high-voltage injury with the loss of both arms and the left thigh. Apart from the standard preparation procedures (e.g., marking the lines for skin incisions, preparation of the distal part of the residual bone), special attention must be paid when performing the operative steps that are crucial for successful osseointegration and utilization of the prosthesis. These include shortening of the residual bone to the desired length, preparation of the intramedullary cavity for hosting of the prosthetic stem, precise trimming of the soft tissue, and wound closure. Finally, we discuss the similarities and differences between the Endo-Fix Stem and the BADAL X implant in terms of their properties, intramedullary positioning, and the mechanisms leading to successful osseointegration.

Alternatives

Socket prostheses for transfemoral or transtibial amputees have been the gold standard for decades. However, such patients face many challenges to recover autonomous mobility, and an estimated 30% of all amputees report unsatisfactory rehabilitation and 10% cannot use a socket prosthesis at all.

Rationale

Transcutaneous osseointegrated prosthetic systems especially benefit patients who are unable to tolerate socket suspension systems, such as those with short residual limbs and/or bilateral limb loss. The use of a firmly integrated endoprosthetic stem allows patients and surgeons to avoid many of the limitations associated with conventional socket prostheses, such as the need to continually fit and refit the socket to match an ever-changing stump6,14-19. Discussion between patients who are considering an osseointegrated prosthesis and those who have already received one ("peer patients") has proven to be a powerful tool to prevent unrealistic expectations. Patients with a transhumeral amputation especially benefit from the stable connection between the residual limb and exoprosthesis. Motion of the affected and even the contralateral shoulder is no longer impaired, as straps and belts are dispensable. Furthermore, transmission of myoelectric signals from surrounding muscles to the prosthesis is fundamentally improved. However, comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus or peripheral arterial disease require careful counseling, even if these conditions were not responsible for the loss of the limb. Transcutaneous osseointegrated prosthetic systems for replacement of an upper or lower limb might not be an option in patients who are unable, for any reason, to take adequate care of the stoma.

Expected Outcomes

Despite subtle differences between the systems utilized for the intramedullary anchoring of the prosthetic stem, all data indicate that mobility and quality of life significantly increase while the frequency of stoma infections is remarkably low as long as the patient is able to follow simple postoperative care protocols2-5,9,10,13-19.

Important Tips

The impaction pressure of the implant depends on the diameter of the implant and the quality of the residual bone (i.e., the time interval between the amputation and the implantation of the prosthetic stem). The extent of reaming of the inner cortex of the residual bone must be adapted to these conditions. The standard Endo-Fix Stem and BADAL X implant are both slightly curved to adapt to the physiological shape of the femur. Thus, the surgeon must be sure to insert the implant in the right position and at the correct rotational alignment. When preparing a short femoral stump, carefully identify the exact transection level in order to obtain enough bone stock to anchor the implant in the correct intramedullary position for an additional locking screw into the femoral neck and head. Depending on the residual length of the humerus and the press-fit stability of the implant, the utilization of locking screws is optional, as a notch at the distal end of the implant guarantees primary rotational stability.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

TOPS = transcutaneous osseointegrated prosthesis systemsEEP = endo-exo prosthesisMRSA = methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureusa.p. = anteroposteriorK-wire = Kirschner wireCT = computed tomographyDCA = double conus adapterOFP = osseointegrated femur prosthesis.

Constructing an Osseointegrated Prosthetic Leg

Background

Constructing an osseointegrated prosthetic leg is the necessary subsequent phase of care for patients following the surgical implantation of an osseointegrated prosthetic limb anchor. The surgeon implants the bone-anchored transcutaneous implant1,2 and the prosthetist constructs the prosthetic leg, which then attaches to the surgically implanted anchor. An osseointegration surgical procedure is usually considered in patients who are unable to use or are dissatisfied with the use of a socket prosthesis.

Description

This present video article describes the techniques and principles involved in constructing a prosthetic leg for transfemoral and transtibial amputees, as well as postoperative patient care. Preoperatively, as part of a multidisciplinary team approach, the prosthetist should assist in patient evaluation to determine suitability for osseointegration surgery. Postoperatively, when approved by the surgeon, the first step is to perform an implant inspection and to take patient measurements. A temporary loading implant is provided to allow the patient to start loading the limb. When the patient is approved for full-length leg to begin full weight-bearing, the implant and prosthetic quality are evaluated, including torque, implant position, bench alignment, static alignment in the standing position, and initial dynamic alignment. This surgical procedure also requires long-term, continued patient care and prosthetic maintenance.

Alternatives

For patients who are dissatisfied with the use of a socket prosthesis, adjustments can often be made to improve the comfort, fit, and performance of the prosthesis. Non-osseointegration surgical options include bone lengthening and/or soft-tissue contouring.

Rationale

Osseointegration can be provided for amputees who are expressing dissatisfaction with their socket prosthesis, and typically provides superior mobility and quality of life compared with nonoperative and other operative options3,4. Specific differences between the appropriate design and construction of osseointegrated prostheses versus socket prostheses include component selection, component fit, patient-prosthesis static and dynamic alignment, tolerances and accommodations, and also the expected long-term changes in patient joint mobility and behavior. Providing an osseointegrated prosthesis according to the principles appropriate for socket prostheses may often leave an osseointegrated patient improperly aligned and provoke maladaptive accommodations, hindering performance and potentially putting patients at unnecessary risk for injury.

Expected Outcomes

Review articles describing the clinical outcomes of osseointegration consistently suggest that patients with osseointegrated prostheses have improved prosthesis wear time, mobility, and quality of life compared with patients with socket prostheses. Importantly, studies have shown that osseointegrated prostheses can be utilized in patients with short residual limbs that preclude the use of a socket prosthesis, allowing them to regain or retain function of the joint proximal to the short residuum5,6. Osseoperception improves patient confidence during mobility7. Because there is an open skin portal, low-grade soft-tissue infection can occur, which is usually treated with a short course of oral antibiotics. Much less often, soft-tissue debridement or implant removal may be needed to treat infection8. Periprosthetic fractures can nearly always be treated with familiar fracture fixation techniques and implant retention9,10.

Important Tips

Falls can lead to periprosthetic fractures.Malalignment can lead to unnecessary pathologic joint forces, soft-tissue contractures, and an accommodative gait.Inadequately sophisticated components can leave patients at a performance deficit.Wearing the prosthetic leg while sleeping may lead to rotational forces exerted on the limb, which may cause prolonged tension on the soft tissue.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

QTFA = Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral AmputationLD-SRS = Limb Deformity Modified Scoliosis Research SocietyPROMIS = Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information SystemEQ-5D = EuroQol 5 Dimensions.

Limb Amputations in Cancer: Modern Perspectives, Outcomes, and Alternatives

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes current findings regarding limb amputation within the context of cancer, especially in osteosarcomas and other bony malignancies. We seek to answer the question of how amputation is utilized in the contemporary management of cancer as well as explore current advances in limb-sparing techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

The latest research on amputation has been sparse given its extensive history and application. However, new research has shown that rotationplasty, osseointegration, targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR), and regenerative peripheral nerve interfaces (RPNI) can provide patients with better functional outcomes than traditional amputation. While limb-sparing surgeries are the mainstay for managing musculoskeletal malignancies, limb amputation is useful as a palliative technique or as a primary treatment modality for more complex cancers. Currently, rotationplasty and osseointegration have been valuable limb-sparing techniques with osseointegration continuing to develop in recent years. TMR and RPNI have also been of interest in the modern management of patients requiring full or partial amputations, allowing for better control over myoelectric prostheses.

Improvements in disability and function in people with lower-limb amputation one year after prosthesis osseointegration

BACKGROUND

People with lower-limb amputation (LLA) are routinely prescribed a socket prosthesis; however, many socket prosthesis users experience severe complications with the fit of their prosthesis including residual limb wounds and pain. Osseointegration is a procedure that creates a direct connection between the bone and prosthetic limb through a bone-anchored prosthesis, eliminating the need for a socket interface. It is offered as a secondary procedure to people with LLA who experience significant complications with socket prostheses.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate change in disability and function 1 year postosseointegration compared with preosseointegration in people with LLA.

STUDY DESIGN

Single group, pretest, and post-test.

METHODS

Twelve participants (9 transfemoral and 3 transtibial amputations, age: 44 ± 10 years, 7 female participants, 14 ± 12 years since amputation) with unilateral LLA underwent osseointegration with press-fit implants. Disability was measured with the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0, and function was measured with both Prosthetic Limb Users Mobility Survey and the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale. Questionnaires were administered preosseointegration and 1 year postosseointegration. Paired t tests assessed change in outcomes between time points.

RESULTS

Postosseointegration, participants demonstrated reduced disability measured with World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (%Δ = -52.6, p = 0.01), improved mobility measured with Prosthetic Limb Users Mobility Survey (%Δ = 21.8, P < 0.01), and improved balance confidence measured with the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (%Δ = 28.4, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Participants report less disability and greater function in their prosthesis postosseointegration. Osseointegration is a novel procedure for people experiencing complications with their socket prosthesis, and this study is the first to show improvements in disability postosseointegration.

Unilateral transfemoral osseointegrated prostheses improve joint loading during walking

People with unilateral transfemoral amputation using socket prostheses are at increased risk for developing osteoarthritis in both the residual hip and intact lower-limb joints. Osseointegrated prostheses are a surgical alternative to socket prostheses that directly attach to the residual femur via a bone-anchored implant, however their multi-joint loading effect is largely unknown. Our objective was to establish how osseointegrated prostheses influence joint loading during walking. Motion capture data (kinematics, ground reaction forces) were collected from 12 participants at baseline, with socket prostheses, and 12-months after prosthesis osseointegration during overground walking at self-selected speeds. Subject-specific musculoskeletal models were developed at each timepoint relative to osseointegration. Internal joint moments were calculated using inverse dynamics, muscle and joint reaction forces (JRFs) were estimated with static optimization. Changes in internal joint moments, JRFs, and joint loading-symmetry were compared using statistical parametric mapping (p≤ 0.05) before and after osseointegration. Amputated limb hip flexion moments and anterior JRFs decreased during terminal stance (p = 0.002, <0.001; respectively), while amputated limb hip abduction moments increased during mid-stance (p < 0.001), amputated hip rotation moment changed from internal to external throughout early stance (p < 0.001). Intact limb hip extension and knee flexion moments (p = 0.028, 0.032; respectively), superior and resultant knee JRFs (p = 0.046, 0.049; respectively) decreased during the loading response following prosthesis osseointegration. These results may indicate that the direct loading transmission of these novel prostheses create a more typical mechanical environment in bilateral joints, which is comparable with loading observed in able-bodied individuals and could decrease the risk of development or progression of osteoarthritis.

Twenty-four months of bacterial colonialization and infection rates in patients with transcutaneous osseointegrated prosthetic systems after lower limb amputation—A prospective analysis

Background

Transcutaneous osseointegrated prosthesis systems (TOPS) are alternative rehabilitation methods to socket prosthetics, after limb amputation. TOPS compromise a two-step surgery: starting with the implantation of the stem which is then followed by the creation of the transcutaneous stoma through which the exoprosthesis can be connected. Immediately after surgery, this opening is permanently exposed to pathogens. This study aimed to investigate the dynamics of bacterial colonization of the stoma to analyze whether obligate bacterial colonization leads to a risk of periprosthetic infections after TOPS treatment.

Methods

This prospective study analyzed data from 66 patients (aged 26–75 years) after TOPS treatment between 2017 and 2019. Microbiological swabs from the stoma were analyzed on the first postoperative day and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after stoma creation. Infection rates, laboratory values (CRP, leukocyte count, hemoglobin), and body temperature were recorded at these points in time. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 28.

Results

The results show the formation of a stable environment dominated by Gram-positive bacteria in the stoma of TOPS patients over 24 months. Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus spp., and Streptococcus spp. were the most common species found. With regard to the cohort up to the 3 months follow-up, 7.9% (five patients) developed infections surrounding the TOPS procedure. In relation to the whole cohort with loss to follow-up of 80.3% at the 24 months follow-up the infection rates increased up to 38.3%.

Conclusion

The soft tissue inside and around the transcutaneous stoma is colonialized by multiple taxa and changes over time. A stable Gram-positive dominated bacterial taxa could be a protective factor for ascending periprosthetic infections and could possibly explain the relatively low infection rate in this study as well as in literature.

Analysis of Stomal Bacterial Colonialization After Transcutaneous Osseointegrated Prosthetic Systems Surgery

This cohort study evaluates bacterial colonization of the stoma after transcutaneous osseointegrated prosthetic systems surgery.

[Functional rehabilitation after transfemoral amputation : Shaft prosthesis or endo-exo prosthesis?]

BACKGROUND

After transfemoral amputation a prosthesis is required to restore autonomous standing and bipedal locomotion. Attachment of the prosthesis can be achieved either classically via socket suspension with a shaft in the stump or directly via implantation of an intramedullary transcutaneous femoral prosthesis (osseointegrated prosthesis).

AIM

A fully instrumented gait analysis should enable objectification of the anticipated advantages of the EEP with respect to the gait pattern and individual mobility.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In two patients with a unilateral transfemoral amputation a comprehensive gait analysis was carried out prior to and 6 months (patient 1) or 11 and 20 months (patient 2) after switching from a socket prosthesis to an EEP. This was carried out in the Gait Realtime Analysis Interactive Lab (GRAIL), a fully instrumented gait laboratory with virtual reality and enables assessment close to the conditions of daily life.

RESULTS

In both cases the gait analysis confirmed the advantages associated with an EEP for the transmission of force to the prosthesis and the accompanying improvement in gait symmetry.