Have Surgery and Implant Modifications Been Associated With Reduction in Soft Tissue Complications in Transfemoral Bone-anchored Prostheses?

BACKGROUND: The most frequently occurring adverse events in individuals with a transfemoral amputation treated with a bone-anchored prosthesis are soft tissue infections and stoma-related complications. These soft tissue complications are believed to be influenced by surgical technique and implant design, but little is known about the effect of changes to treatment on these events. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the result of surgical technique and implant modifications on the incidence of soft tissue infections and stoma-related complications in transfemoral bone-anchored prosthesis users, depending on whether they had a conventional stoma and a cobalt-chrome-molybdenum (CoCrMo) osseointegration implant (treatment period 2009 to 2013) or a shallower stoma and titanium osseointegration implant (2015 to 2018)? (2) What is the incidence of serious complications, such as bone or implant infection, aseptic loosening, intramedullary stem breakage, and periprosthetic fracture? METHODS: Between 2009 and 2013, we performed osseointegration implant surgery using a conventional surgical technique and a CoCrMo implant in 42 individuals who had a lower extremity amputation experiencing socket-related problems that resulted in limited prosthesis use. We considered all individuals treated with two-stage surgery with a standard press-fit transfemoral osseointegration implant as potentially eligible for inclusion. Based on this, 100% (42) were eligible, and 5% (two of 42) were excluded because they did not provide informed consent, leaving 95% (40 of 42) for analysis. Between 2015 and 2018, we treated 79 individuals with similar indications with osseointegration implant surgery, now also treating individuals with dysvascular amputations. We used an adapted surgical technique resulting in a shallower stoma combined with a titanium implant. Using the same eligibility criteria as for the first group, 51% (40 of 79) were eligible; 49% (39 of 79) were excluded because they were treated with transtibial amputation, a patient-specific implant, or single-stage surgery and 1% (one of 79) were lost before the 2-year follow-up interval, leaving 49% (39 of 79) for analysis. The period of 2013 to 2015 was a transitional period and was excluded from analysis in this study to keep groups reasonably comparable and to compare a historical approach with the present approach. Hence, we presented a comparative study of two study groups (defined by surgical technique and implant design) with standardized 2-year follow-up. The risk factors for adverse events were similar between groups, although individuals treated with the shallow stoma surgical technique and titanium implant potentially possessed an increased risk because of the inclusion of individuals with dysvascular amputation and the discontinuation of prolonged postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. Outcomes studied were soft tissue infections and stoma-related complications (hypergranulation or keloid formation as well as stoma redundant tissue) and bone or implant infection, aseptic loosening, implant stem breakage, periprosthetic fracture, and death. RESULTS: Patients treated with the shallow stoma surgical technique and titanium implant experienced fewer soft tissue infections (13 versus 76 events, absolute risk 0.17 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.30] versus 0.93 [95% CI 0.60 to 1.45]; p < 0.01), which were treated with less invasive measures, and fewer stoma redundant tissue events (0 versus five events, absolute risk 0 versus 0.06 [95% CI 0.03 to 0.14]) than patients treated with the conventional stoma surgical technique and CoCrMo implant. This was contrasted by an increased incidence of surgical site infections occurring between surgical stages 1 and 2, when no stoma was yet created, after the implementation of treatment changes (conventional surgery and CoCrMo implant versus shallow stoma surgery and titanium implant: one versus 11 events, absolute risk 0.01 [95% CI 0.00 to 0.08] versus 0.14 [95% CI 0.08 to 0.25]; p = 0.02). Patients treated with the shallow stoma surgical technique and titanium implant did not experience serious complications, although bone infections occurred (six events in 8% [three of 40] of patients) in the conventional surgery and CoCrMo implant group, all of which were successfully treated with implant retention. CONCLUSION: Adaptations to surgical technique and newer implant designs, as well as learning curve and experience, have resulted in a reduced incidence and severity of soft tissue infections and stoma redundant tissue, contrasted by an increase in surgical site infections before stoma creation. Serious complications such as deep implant infection were infrequent in this 2-year follow-up period. We believe the benefits of these treatment modifications outweigh the disadvantages and currently advise surgeons to create a shallower stoma with a stable soft tissue envelope, combined with a titanium implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Complications of bone-anchored prostheses for individuals with an extremity amputation: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to provide an overview of device-related complications occurring in individuals with an upper or lower extremity amputation treated with a screw, press-fit or other type of bone-anchored implant as well as interventions related to these complications. METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science databases. The included studies reported on device-related complications and interventions occurring in individuals with bone-anchored prostheses. The outcomes evaluated were death, infection, bone/device breakage, implant loosening, soft tissue complications, systemic events, antibiotic and surgical treatment. Subgroup analyses were performed for the following groups: a) implant type (screw, press-fit and other types of implants) and b) level of amputation (transfemoral, transtibial and upper extremity amputation). RESULTS: Of 309 studies, 12 cohort studies were eligible for inclusion, all of which had methodological shortcomings and 12 studies were excluded due to complete overlap of patient data. Implant infection were rare in certain transfemoral implants (screw: 2-11%, press-fit: 0-3%, Compress: 0%) but common in transtibial implants (29%). The same was observed for implant loosening, in transfemoral (screw: 6%, press-fit: 0-3%, Compress: 0%), transtibial implants (29%) as well as for upper extremity implants (13-23%). Intramedullary device breakage were rare in transfemoral implants (screw: 0%, press-fit: 1%, Compress: unknown) but frequent in individuals with transradial implants (27%) and absent in transtibial implants. Soft tissue infections and complications were common and underreported in most articles. CONCLUSIONS: Major complications (e.g. implant infection, implant loosening and intramedullary device breakage) are rare in transfemoral bone-anchored prosthesis and seem to occur less frequently in individuals with press-fit implants. Minor complications, such as soft tissue infections and complications, are common but are substantially influenced by the learning curve, implant design and surgical technique. Data for patients treated with a transtibial, upper extremity or Compress implant are underreported, precluding definitive conclusions. There is a need for either an international database to report on or a standard core set of complications as well as the need to follow classification systems that result in unequivocal data.

Osseointegrated Transtibial Implants in Patients with Peripheral Vascular Disease: A Multicenter Case Series of 5 Patients with 1-Year Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Osseointegration is an alternative treatment for amputees who are unable to wear or have difficulty wearing a socket prosthesis. Although the majority of limb amputations are due to vascular disease, such amputations have been perceived as a contraindication to osseointegration surgery. We report the outcomes of osseointegrated reconstruction in a series of 5 patients with limb amputation due to peripheral vascular disease. METHODS: Five patients with transtibial amputation and a history of peripheral vascular disease who received an osseointegration implant from 2014 to 2015 were followed for 12 months. Clinical and functional outcomes were assessed, including pain, the amount of time the patient wore the prosthesis, mobility, walking ability, and quality of life. Adverse events, including infection, fracture, implant failure, revision surgery, additional amputation, and death, were monitored and recorded. RESULTS: Five transtibial amputees (56 to 84 years of age) followed for 1 year after osseointegration surgery were included in this case series. The mobility of all patients was improved at the time of follow-up. Three patients were wheelchair-bound prior to the surgery but all 5 were able to walk and perform daily activities at the time of follow-up. Four of the 5 patients were pain-free at 12 months postoperatively, and all 5 were using the osseointegrated prosthesis. Two patients had a single episode of superficial soft-tissue infection. CONCLUSIONS: An osseointegrated implant may be considered a feasible alternative to the conventional socket prosthesis for patients with peripheral vascular disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.