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.

What Are the Risk Factors for Mechanical Failure and Loosening of a Transfemoral Osseointegrated Implant System in Patients with a Lower-limb Amputation?

BACKGROUND: Septic loosening and stem breakage due to metal fatigue is a rare but well-known cause of orthopaedic implant failure. This may also affect the components of the osseointegrated implant system for individuals with transfemoral amputation who subsequently undergo revision. Identifying risk factors is important to minimize the frequency of revision surgery after implant breakage. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of patients who received an osseointegrated implant after transfemoral amputation underwent revision surgery, and what were the causes of those revisions? (2) What factors were associated with revision surgery when stratified by the location of the mechanical failure and (septic) loosening (intramedullary stem versus dual cone adapter)? METHODS: Between May 2009 and July 2015, we treated 72 patients with an osseointegrated implant. Inclusion criteria were a minimum follow-up of 5-years and a standard press-fit cobalt-chromium-molybdenum (CoCrMb) transfemoral osseointegrated implant. Based on that, 83% (60 of 72) of patients were eligible; a further 3% (2 of 60) were excluded because of no received informed consent (n = 1) and loss to follow-up (n = 1). Eventually, we included 81% (58 of 72) of patients for analysis in this retrospective, comparative study. We compared patient characteristics (gender, age, and BMI), implant details (diameter of the intramedullary stem, length of the dual cone, and implant survival time), and event characteristics (infectious complications and distal bone resorption). The data were retrieved from our electronic patient file and from our cloud-based database and analyzed by individuals not involved in patient care. Failures were categorized as: (1) mechanical failures, defined as breakage of the intramedullary stem or dual-cone adapter, or (2) (septic) loosening of the osseointegrated implant. RESULTS: Thirty-four percent (20 of 58) of patients had revision surgery. In 12% (7 of 58) of patients, the reason for revision was due to intramedullary stem failures (six breakages, one septic loosening), and in 22% (13 of 58) of patients it was due to dual-cone adaptor failure (10 weak-point breakages and four distal taper breakages; one patient broke both the weak-point and the dual-cone adapter). Smaller median stem diameter (failure: 15 mm [interquartile range 1.3], nonfailure: 17 mm [IQR 2.0], difference of medians 2 mm; p < 0.01) and higher median number of infectious events (failure: 6 [IQR 11], nonfailure: 1 [IQR 3.0], difference of medians -5; p < 0.01) were associated with revision intramedullary stem surgery. No risk factors could be identified for broken dual-cone adapters. CONCLUSION: Possible risk factors for system failure of this osteointegration implant include small stem diameter and high number of infectious events. We did not find factors associated with dual-cone adapter weak-point failure and distal taper failure, most likely because of the small sample size. When treating a person with a lower-limb amputation with a CoCrMb osseointegrated implant, we recommend avoiding a small stem diameter. Further research with longer follow-up is needed to study the success of revised patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Rib fixation versus non-operative treatment for flail chest and multiple rib fractures after blunt thoracic trauma: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Over the years, a trend has evolved towards operative treatment of flail chest although evidence is limited. Furthermore, little is known about operative treatment for patients with multiple rib fractures without a flail chest. The aim of this study was to compare rib fixation based on a clinical treatment algorithm with nonoperative treatment for both patients with a flail chest or multiple rib fractures. METHODS: All patients with ≥ 3 rib fractures admitted to one of the two contributing hospitals between January 2014 and January 2017 were retrospectively included in this multicenter cohort study. One hospital treated all patients nonoperatively and the other hospital treated patients with rib fixation according to a clinical treatment algorithm. Primary outcome measures were intensive care length of stay and hospital length of stay for patients with a flail chest and patients with multiple rib fractures, respectively. To control for potential confounding, propensity score matching was applied. RESULTS: A total of 332 patients were treated according to protocol and available for analysis. The mean age was 56 (SD 17) years old and 257 (77%) patients were male. The overall mean Injury Severity Score was 23 (SD 11) and the average number of rib fractures was 8 (SD 4). There were 92 patients with a flail chest, 37 (40%) had rib fixation and 55 (60%) had non-operative treatment. There were 240 patients with multiple rib fractures, 28 (12%) had rib fixation and 212 (88%) had non-operative treatment. For both patient groups, after propensity score matching, rib fixation was not associated with intensive care unit length of stay (for flail chest patients) nor with hospital length of stay (for multiple rib fracture patients), nor with the secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSION: No advantage could be demonstrated for operative fixation of rib fractures. Future studies are needed before rib fixation is embedded or abandoned in clinical practice.