Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery
Published in: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 6/2022

Open Access 18-06-2022 | Original Article

Comparison of functional outcome and patient satisfaction between patients with socket prosthesis and patients treated with transcutaneous osseointegrated prosthetic systems (TOPS) after transfemoral amputation

Authors: Marcus Örgel, Frederik Schwarze, Tilman Graulich, Christian Krettek, Friederike Weidemann, Horst-Heinrich Aschoff, Marcel Winkelmann, Alexander Ranker

Published in: European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery | Issue 6/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this retrospective analysis was to investigate and evaluate differences in functional outcome and satisfaction of patients treated with a TOPS and patients using socket prosthesis after transfemoral amputation.

Methods

This retrospective comprehensive analysis included patients from a single hospital, and was conducted between February 2017 and December 2018. Overall n = 139 patients with prosthesis were included and divided into two comparable groups (socket- and TOPS group). Incomplete data sets were excluded. This led to n = 36 participants for the socket- and n = 33 for the TOPS group. Functional outcome and satisfaction were evaluated by Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). The used PROMs were: Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA), EQ5D-5L, Satisfaction with Prosthesis Questionnaire (SAT-PRO), Prosthesis Mobility Questionnaire (PMQ 2.0) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM).

Results

Significant results in favor of TOPS patients were identified for the EQ-5D 5L (p = 0.004), Q-TFA (p = 0.000), SAT-PRO (p = 0.000) and PMQ 2.0 (p = 0.000). For FIM, no statistical significance was found (p = 0.318).

Conclusion

In this study, transfemoral amputees treated with an osseointegrated prosthetic attachment (TOPS) showed significantly higher scores for mobility and satisfaction. This demonstrates the high potential of TOPS in the prosthetic treatment of patients with transfemoral amputation with regard to their functional abilities in daily life.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Branemark R, Branemark PI, Rydevik B, Myers RR. Osseointegration in skeletal reconstruction and rehabilitation: a review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001;38:175–81.PubMed
2.
Willey J, Mentias A, Vaughan-Sarrazin M, McCoy K, Rosenthal G, Girotra S. Epidemiology of lower extremity peripheral artery disease in veterans. J Vasc Surg. 2018;68:527-535 e525.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
3.
Moxey PW, Gogalniceanu P, Hinchliffe RJ, Loftus IM, Jones KJ, Thompson MM, Holt PJ. Lower extremity amputations—a review of global variability in incidence. Diabet Med. 2011;28:1144–53.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Moxey PW, Hofman D, Hinchliffe RJ, Jones K, Thompson MM, Holt PJ. Epidemiological study of lower limb amputation in England between 2003 and 2008. Br J Surg. 2010;97:1348–53.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Krueger CA, Wenke JC, Ficke JR. Ten years at war: comprehensive analysis of amputation trends. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73:S438-444.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Putz C, Block J, Gantz S, Heitzmann DWW, Dreher T, Lehner B, Alimusaj M, Wolf SI, Muller S. Structural changes in the thigh muscles following trans-femoral amputation. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017;27:829–35.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Sathishkumar S, Manigandan C, Asha T, Charles J, Poonoose PP. A cost-effective, adjustable, femoral socket, temporary prosthesis for immediate rehabilitation of above-knee amputation. Int J Rehabil Res. 2004;27:71–4.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Aschoff HH. Transcutaneous osseointegration after limb amputation: a review over 27 years. Unfallchirurg. 2017;120:278–84.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Aschoff HH, Juhnke DL. Endo-exo prostheses: osseointegrated percutaneously channeled implants for rehabilitation after limb amputation. Unfallchirurg. 2016;119:421–7.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Aschoff HH, Clausen A, Hoffmeister T. The endo-exo femur prosthesis—a new concept of bone-guided, prosthetic rehabilitation following above-knee amputation. Z Orthop Unfall. 2009;147:610–5.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Leijendekkers RA, van Hinte G, Frolke JP, van de Meent H, Atsma F, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW, Hoogeboom TJ. Functional performance and safety of bone-anchored prostheses in persons with a transfemoral or transtibial amputation: a prospective one-year follow-up cohort study. Clin Rehabil. 2019;33:450–64.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Van de Meent H, Hopman MT, Frolke JP. Walking ability and quality of life in subjects with transfemoral amputation: a comparison of osseointegration with socket prostheses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:2174–8.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Al Muderis M, Lu W, Li JJ. Osseointegrated Prosthetic Limb for the treatment of lower limb amputations: experience and outcomes. Unfallchirurg. 2017;120:306–11.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Hagberg K, Branemark R. Consequences of non-vascular trans-femoral amputation: a survey of quality of life, prosthetic use and problems. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2001;25:186–94.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Pernot HF, Winnubst GM, Cluitmans JJ, De Witte LP. Amputees in Limburg: incidence, morbidity and mortality, prosthetic supply, care utilisation and functional level after one year. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2000;24:90–6.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Hoffmeister T, Schwarze F, Aschoff HH. The endo-exo prosthesis treatment concept: improvement in quality of life after limb amputation. Unfallchirurg. 2017;120:371–7.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Hagberg K, Haggstrom E, Uden M, Branemark R. Socket versus bone-anchored trans-femoral prostheses: hip range of motion and sitting comfort. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2005;29:153–63.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Hagberg K, Branemark R, Gunterberg B, Rydevik B. Osseointegrated trans-femoral amputation prostheses: prospective results of general and condition-specific quality of life in 18 patients at 2-year follow-up. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2008;32:29–41.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Hagberg K, Hansson E, Branemark R. Outcome of percutaneous osseointegrated prostheses for patients with unilateral transfemoral amputation at two-year follow-up. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95:2120–7.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Pospiech PT, Wendlandt R, Aschoff HH, Ziegert S, Schulz AP. Quality of life of persons with transfemoral amputation: Comparison of socket prostheses and osseointegrated prostheses. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2020;45:20–5.CrossRef
21.
McMenemy L, Ramasamy A, Sherman K, Mistlin A, Phillip R, Evriviades D, Kendrew J. Direct Skeletal Fixation in bilateral above knee amputees following blast: 2 year follow up results from the initial cohort of UK service personnel. Injury. 2020;51:735–43.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Tsikandylakis G, Berlin O, Branemark R. Implant survival, adverse events, and bone remodeling of osseointegrated percutaneous implants for transhumeral amputees. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:2947–56.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
Kunutsor SK, Gillatt D, Blom AW. Systematic review of the safety and efficacy of osseointegration prosthesis after limb amputation. Br J Surg. 2018;105:1731–41.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Orgel M, Ranker A, Harb A, Krettek C, Aschoff HH. Transcutaneous osseointegrated prosthetic systems after major amputation of the lower extremity : a retrospective 3-year analysis. Orthopade. 2021;50:4–13.PubMed
25.
Hagberg K, Branemark R, Hagg O. Questionnaire for persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA): initial validity and reliability of a new outcome measure. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2004;41:695–706.PubMedCrossRef
26.
27.
Hinz A, Kohlmann T, Stobel-Richter Y, Zenger M, Brahler E. The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D-5L: psychometric properties and normative values for the general German population. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:443–7.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Abdin E, Subramaniam M, Vaingankar JA, Luo N, Chong SA. Measuring health-related quality of life among adults in Singapore: population norms for the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:2983–91.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Badia X, Schiaffino A, Alonso J, Herdman M. Using the EuroQoI 5-D in the Catalan general population: feasibility and construct validity. Qual Life Res. 1998;7:311–22.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Hinz A, Klaiberg A, Brahler E, Konig HH. The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D: modelling and norm values for the general population. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol. 2006;56:42–8.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Johnson JA, Pickard AS. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med Care. 2000;38:115–21.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ. 1998;316:736–41.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, Oppe M, Krabbe PF. Eliciting preferences to the EQ-5D-5L health states: discrete choice experiment or multiprofile case of best-worst scaling? Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15:281–8.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Devlin NJ, Krabbe PF. The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl 1):S1-3.PubMedCrossRef
36.
37.
Bilodeau S, Hebert R, Desrosiers J. Questionnaire on the satisfaction of persons with lower-limb amputations towards their prosthesis: development and validation. Can J Occup Ther. 1999;66:23–32.PubMedCrossRef
38.
39.
Franchignoni F, Monticone M, Giordano A, Rocca B. Rasch validation of the Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire: a new outcome measure for assessing mobility in people with lower limb amputation. J Rehabil Med. 2015;47:460–5.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Burger H, Giordano A, Bavec A, Franchignoni F. The Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire, a tool for assessing mobility in people with lower-limb amputation: validation of PMQ 2.0 in Slovenia. Int J Rehabil Res. 2019;42:263–9.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Ranker A, Orgel M, Schiller J, Egen C, Ranker AH, Greitemann B, Gutenbrunner C. [Translation, Adaptation, Reliability and Validity of the German Version of the Prosthesis Mobility Questionnaire 2.0 (PMQ) on Patients with Major Lower Limb Amputation]. Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2021;60(6):374–383. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1055/​a-1506-7603 CrossRefPubMed
42.
Ranker A, Gutenbrunner C, Eckhardt I, Giordano A, Burger H, Franchignoni F. Rasch validation and comparison of the German versions of the Locomotor Capabilities Index-5 and Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire 2.0 in lower-limb prosthesis users. Int J Rehabil Res. 2021;44:233–40.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Freidel K, Leisse M. Measurement of functional independence: concordance of the assessments SINGER and FIM and consequences for the user. Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2014;53:43–8.PubMed
44.
Kidd D, Stewart G, Baldry J, Johnson J, Rossiter D, Petruckevitch A, Thompson AJ. The Functional Independence Measure: a comparative validity and reliability study. Disabil Rehabil. 1995;17:10–4.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Leung EC, Rush PJ, Devlin M. Predicting prosthetic rehabilitation outcome in lower limb amputee patients with the functional independence measure. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:605–8.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Panesar BS, Morrison P, Hunter J. A comparison of three measures of progress in early lower limb amputee rehabilitation. Clin Rehabil. 2001;15:157–71.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Hebert JS, Payne MW, Wolfe DL, Deathe AB, Devlin M. Comorbidities in amputation: a systematic review of hemiplegia and lower limb amputation. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:1943–9.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Haas U, Mayer H, Evers GC. Interobserver reliability of the “Functional Independence Measure” (FIM) in patients with craniocerebral injuries. Pflege. 2002;15:191–7.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Wurdeman SR, Stevens PM, Campbell JH. Mobility Analysis of AmpuTees (MAAT I): Quality of life and satisfaction are strongly related to mobility for patients with a lower limb prosthesis. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018;42:498–503.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Kark L, Simmons A. Patient satisfaction following lower-limb amputation: the role of gait deviation. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2011;35:225–33.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Karmarkar AM, Graham JE, Reistetter TA, Kumar A, Mix JM, Niewczyk P, Granger CV, Ottenbacher KJ. Association between functional severity and amputation type with rehabilitation outcomes in patients with lower limb amputation. Rehabil Res Pract. 2014;2014:961798.PubMedPubMedCentral
52.
Dodds TA, Martin DP, Stolov WC, Deyo RA. A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:531–6.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Kohler F, Dickson H, Redmond H, Estell J, Connolly C. Agreement of functional independence measure item scores in patients transferred from one rehabilitation setting to another. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2009;45:479–85.PubMed
54.
Bak P, Müller WD, Bocker B, Smolenski U. Veränderungen des allgemeinen Gesundheitszustandes und der funktionellen Unabhängigkeit bei Patienten nach Amputationen der unteren Extremität und stationärer Rehabilitation. Phys Med Rehabil Kurortmed. 2003;13:345–53.
55.
Al Muderis MM, Lu WY, Li JJ, Kaufman K, Orendurff M, Highsmith MJ, Lunseth PA, Kahle JT. Clinically relevant outcome measures following limb osseointegration; systematic review of the literature. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32:e64–75.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Hagberg K. Bone-anchored prostheses in patients with traumatic bilateral transfemoral amputations: rehabilitation description and outcome in 12 cases treated with the OPRA implant system. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14:346–53.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Branemark RP, Hagberg K, Kulbacka-Ortiz K, Berlin O, Rydevik B. Osseointegrated percutaneous prosthetic system for the treatment of patients with transfemoral amputation: a prospective five-year follow-up of patient-reported outcomes and complications. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019;27:e743–51.PubMedCrossRef
58.
59.
Branemark R, Berlin O, Hagberg K, Bergh P, Gunterberg B, Rydevik B. A novel osseointegrated percutaneous prosthetic system for the treatment of patients with transfemoral amputation: a prospective study of 51 patients. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B:106–13.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Muderis MA, Tetsworth K, Khemka A, Wilmot S, Bosley B, Lord SJ, Glatt V. The Osseointegration Group of Australia Accelerated Protocol (OGAAP-1) for two-stage osseointegrated reconstruction of amputated limbs. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B:952–60.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Cutti AG, Lettieri E, Del Maestro M, Radaelli G, Luchetti M, Verni G, Masella C. Stratified cost-utility analysis of C-Leg versus mechanical knees: findings from an Italian sample of transfemoral amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017;41:227–36.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Buchholz I, Janssen MF, Kohlmann T, Feng YS. A Systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36:645–61.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
63.
Akarsu S, Tekin L, Safaz I, Goktepe AS, Yazicioglu K. Quality of life and functionality after lower limb amputations: comparison between uni- vs. bilateral amputee patients. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013;37:9–13.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Hagberg K, Branemark R. One hundred patients treated with osseointegrated transfemoral amputation prostheses–rehabilitation perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46:331–44.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Hagberg K, Brånemark R. Consequences of non-vascular trans-femoral amputation: a survey of quality of life, prosthetic use and problems. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2001;25(3):186–194.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Reetz D, Atallah R, Mohamed J, van de Meent H, Frolke JPM, Leijendekkers R. Safety and performance of bone-anchored prostheses in persons with a transfemoral amputation: a 5-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020;102:1329–35.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Atallah R, van de Meent H, Verhamme L, Frolke JP, Leijendekkers RA. Safety, prosthesis wearing time and health-related quality of life of lower extremity bone-anchored prostheses using a press-fit titanium osseointegration implant: a prospective one-year follow-up cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2020;15: e0230027.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
68.
Leijendekkers RA, van Hinte G, Frolke JP, van de Meent H, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW, Staal JB. Comparison of bone-anchored prostheses and socket prostheses for patients with a lower extremity amputation: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39:1045–58.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of functional outcome and patient satisfaction between patients with socket prosthesis and patients treated with transcutaneous osseointegrated prosthetic systems (TOPS) after transfemoral amputation
Authors
Marcus Örgel
Frederik Schwarze
Tilman Graulich
Christian Krettek
Friederike Weidemann
Horst-Heinrich Aschoff
Marcel Winkelmann
Alexander Ranker
Publication date
18-06-2022
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery / Issue 6/2022
Print ISSN: 1863-9933
Electronic ISSN: 1863-9941
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-022-02018-6

Other articles of this Issue 6/2022

European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 6/2022 Go to the issue

Original Article

Development of practical triage methods for critical trauma patients: machine-learning algorithm for evaluating hybrid operation theatre entry of trauma patients (THETA)

Review Article

Orthopaedic, trauma surgery, and Covid-2019 pandemic: clinical panorama and future prospective in Europe

Original Article

Does the magnitude of injuries affect the outcome of proximal humerus fractures treated by locked plating (PHILOS)?

Original Article

Infrastructure, logistics and clinical practice management of acute trauma hemorrhage and coagulopathy: a survey across German trauma centers

Original Article

Comparison of aortic zones for endovascular bleeding control: age and sex differences

Original Article

Proximal humeral fracture osteosynthesis in Belgium: a retrospective population-based epidemiologic study