Bone-anchored prostheses for transfemoral amputation: a systematic review of outcomes, complications, patient experiences, and cost-effectiveness

IF 1.3 Q3 REHABILITATION
Ruediger Rupp, L. Frossard, Jacqueline S Hebert, Mayank Rehani, Tania Sta fi nski, Jeff Round, C. A. Jones
{"title":"Bone-anchored prostheses for transfemoral amputation: a systematic review of outcomes, complications, patient experiences, and cost-effectiveness","authors":"Ruediger Rupp, L. Frossard, Jacqueline S Hebert, Mayank Rehani, Tania Sta fi nski, Jeff Round, C. A. Jones","doi":"10.3389/fresc.2024.1336042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Bone-anchored prostheses (BAP) are an advanced reconstructive surgical approach for individuals who had transfemoral amputation and are unable to use the conventional socket-suspension systems for their prostheses. Access to this technology has been limited in part due to the lag between the start of a new procedure and the availability of evidence that is required before making decisions about widespread provision. This systematic review presents as a single resource up-to-date information on aspects most relevant to decision makers, i.e., clinical efficacy, safety parameters, patient experiences, and health economic outcomes of this technology. Methods A systematic search of the literature was conducted by an information specialist in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, the Core Collection of Web of Science, CADTH's Grey Matters, and Google Scholar up until May 31, 2023. Peer-reviewed original research articles on the outcomes of clinical effectiveness (health-related quality of life, mobility, and prosthesis usage), complications and adverse events, patient experiences, and health economic outcomes were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence and ROBINS-I, as appropriate. Results Fifty studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 12 were excluded. Thirty-eight studies were finally included in this review, of which 21 reported on clinical outcomes and complications, 9 case series and 1 cohort study focused specifically on complications and adverse events, and 2 and 5 qualitative studies reported on patient experience and health economic assessments, respectively. The most common study design is a single-arm trial (pre-/post-intervention design) with varying lengths of follow-up. Discussion The clinical efficacy of this technology is evident in selected populations. Overall, patients reported increased health-related quality of life, mobility, and prosthesis usage post-intervention. The most common complication is a superficial or soft-tissue infection, and more serious complications are rare. Patient-reported experiences have generally been positive. Evidence indicates that bone-anchored implants for prosthesis fixation are cost-effective for those individuals who face significant challenges in using socket-suspension systems, although they may offer no additional advantage to those who are functioning well with their socket-suspended prostheses.","PeriodicalId":73102,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2024.1336042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Bone-anchored prostheses (BAP) are an advanced reconstructive surgical approach for individuals who had transfemoral amputation and are unable to use the conventional socket-suspension systems for their prostheses. Access to this technology has been limited in part due to the lag between the start of a new procedure and the availability of evidence that is required before making decisions about widespread provision. This systematic review presents as a single resource up-to-date information on aspects most relevant to decision makers, i.e., clinical efficacy, safety parameters, patient experiences, and health economic outcomes of this technology. Methods A systematic search of the literature was conducted by an information specialist in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, the Core Collection of Web of Science, CADTH's Grey Matters, and Google Scholar up until May 31, 2023. Peer-reviewed original research articles on the outcomes of clinical effectiveness (health-related quality of life, mobility, and prosthesis usage), complications and adverse events, patient experiences, and health economic outcomes were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence and ROBINS-I, as appropriate. Results Fifty studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 12 were excluded. Thirty-eight studies were finally included in this review, of which 21 reported on clinical outcomes and complications, 9 case series and 1 cohort study focused specifically on complications and adverse events, and 2 and 5 qualitative studies reported on patient experience and health economic assessments, respectively. The most common study design is a single-arm trial (pre-/post-intervention design) with varying lengths of follow-up. Discussion The clinical efficacy of this technology is evident in selected populations. Overall, patients reported increased health-related quality of life, mobility, and prosthesis usage post-intervention. The most common complication is a superficial or soft-tissue infection, and more serious complications are rare. Patient-reported experiences have generally been positive. Evidence indicates that bone-anchored implants for prosthesis fixation are cost-effective for those individuals who face significant challenges in using socket-suspension systems, although they may offer no additional advantage to those who are functioning well with their socket-suspended prostheses.
用于经股截肢的骨锚定假体:对疗效、并发症、患者体验和成本效益的系统回顾
导言骨固定假体(BAP)是一种先进的重建手术方法,适用于无法使用传统插座悬吊系统安装假体的经股截肢患者。这种技术的使用一直受到限制,部分原因是新手术的开始与在决定是否广泛提供之前所需的证据之间存在滞后性。本系统综述以单一资源的形式提供了与决策者最相关的方面的最新信息,即该技术的临床疗效、安全参数、患者体验和健康经济结果。方法 由一名信息专家在 PubMed、MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、Cochrane Library、Web of Science 的 Core Collection、CADTH 的 Grey Matters 和 Google Scholar 中对文献进行了系统检索,检索期截至 2023 年 5 月 31 日。研究对象包括经同行评审的原创研究文章,内容涉及临床效果(与健康相关的生活质量、活动能力和假体使用)、并发症和不良事件、患者体验以及健康经济效益。研究质量酌情采用牛津循证医学中心证据等级和 ROBINS-I 进行评估。结果 50 项研究符合纳入标准,其中 12 项被排除在外。本综述最终纳入了 38 项研究,其中 21 项研究报告了临床结果和并发症,9 项病例系列研究和 1 项队列研究特别关注并发症和不良事件,2 项和 5 项定性研究分别报告了患者体验和卫生经济评估。最常见的研究设计是单臂试验(干预前/后设计),随访时间长短不一。讨论 该技术在特定人群中的临床疗效明显。总体而言,干预后患者的健康相关生活质量、活动能力和假肢使用率都有所提高。最常见的并发症是表皮或软组织感染,更严重的并发症很少见。患者报告的经验一般都是正面的。有证据表明,对于那些在使用承插座悬吊系统时面临重大挑战的人来说,用于假体固定的骨锚定植入物具有成本效益,不过对于那些使用承插座悬吊假体功能良好的人来说,骨锚定植入物可能不会带来额外的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信