Three-year follow-up of changes of cortical bone thickness after implantation of Endo-Exo-Prosthesis (EEP) for transfemoral amputees.
Endo-Exo-Prosthesis
Osseointegration
Transcutaneous osseointegrated prosthetic system (TOPS)
Transfemoral amputee
Journal
Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research
ISSN: 1749-799X
Titre abrégé: J Orthop Surg Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101265112
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 May 2020
04 May 2020
Historique:
received:
16
01
2020
accepted:
06
04
2020
entrez:
6
5
2020
pubmed:
6
5
2020
medline:
13
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Transcutaneous Osseointegrated Prosthetic Systems (TOPS) offer a good alternative for patients who cannot be satisfactorily rehabilitated by conventional suspension sockets. The Endo-Exo-Prothesis (EEP, ESKA Orthopaedic Handels GmbH®, Deutschland) is the most implanted TOPS in Germany. Previous studies have shown that cortical thickness increases after implantation of TOPS. The aim of this study is to determine changes of cortical thickness in relation to the time after implantation of the Endo-Fix-Stem. All transfemoral amputees treated by EEP from 2007 to 2013 were operated by the last author of this study. X-ray images of 4 follow-up intervals (postoperative, 3 months, 12 months, 3 years) were analyzed retrospectively. The femoral residuum was divided into 3 sections (proximal, middle, distal) with 2 measuring points in each section: medial and lateral. Cortical thickness was measured at these 6 points and compared at regular intervals using the Friedman test for non-parametric dependent variables. Thirty-seven patients with 40 implants were included. The average age was 52.2 years (30-79 years). 83.7% of the patients were male. No statistical significance could be shown for any of the measuring points of the femoral residual (proximal medial, proximal lateral, middle medial, middle lateral, distal medial, distal lateral) among the mean values of the cortical thickness at the different follow-up times (p > 0.05 for all measuring points). Cortical remodeling processes (> 1 millimeter (mm)) occurred in all implants despite a missing statistical significance. Hypertrophy could be confirmed for 42.5% and atrophy for 37.5%. Twenty percent of the cases showed a parallel occurrence of both entities. Cortical changes greater than 5 mm were only observed at the distal end of the femur. Even if our results did not show any significant difference, it can be deduced that the osseointegration process leads to a remodeling of the bone structure, both in terms of increased bone formation and bone resorption. However, it has not yet been conclusively clarified which processes lead to hyper- or atrophy. The force transmission between prosthesis and bone and the facultative bacterial colonization of the stoma are still the main factors which may be responsible for the bone remodeling processes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32366315
doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01675-w
pii: 10.1186/s13018-020-01675-w
pmc: PMC7199357
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
164Références
Orthopade. 1997 Feb;26(2):117-24
pubmed: 9157350
Unfallchirurg. 2017 Apr;120(4):306-311
pubmed: 28070628
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998 May;80(3):404-10
pubmed: 9619926
Z Orthop Unfall. 2009 Sep-Oct;147(5):610-5
pubmed: 19938359
J Orthop Res. 2012 Nov;30(11):1822-9
pubmed: 22513505
J Bone Metab. 2014 Feb;21(1):29-40
pubmed: 24707465
Int Orthop. 2012 Mar;36(3):533-8
pubmed: 21935621
J Biomech. 2002 Dec;35(12):1553-64
pubmed: 12445608
Acta Orthop. 2012 Apr;83(2):121-8
pubmed: 22489885
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001 Mar-Apr;38(2):175-81
pubmed: 11392650
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Sep;(414):7-24
pubmed: 12966271
Z Orthop Unfall. 2012 Dec;150(6):607-14
pubmed: 23171987
Zahnarztl Mitt. 1987 Apr 16;77(8):840-2, 844-8, 850-2
pubmed: 3037824
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987 Jan;69(1):45-55
pubmed: 3818732
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986 Jul;(208):108-13
pubmed: 3720113
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52(4):407-20
pubmed: 26348827
J Biomech. 2017 Oct 3;63:135-143
pubmed: 28882332
Acta Orthop Belg. 1980;46(6):711-27
pubmed: 7246109
Orthopade. 1995 Sep;24(5):378-86
pubmed: 7478499
Unfallchirurg. 2017 May;120(5):395-402
pubmed: 28396957
J Bone Miner Res. 2011 Jun;26(6):1321-9
pubmed: 21611970
Ann Biomed Eng. 2008 Mar;36(3):435-43
pubmed: 18197477
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2012 Nov;15:167-75
pubmed: 23032436
Biomed Tech (Berl). 1989 Dec;34(12):308-14
pubmed: 2620084
J Biomed Mater Res A. 2017 Feb;105(2):578-589
pubmed: 27750392
J Orthop Trauma. 2016 Oct;30 Suppl 3:S27-S30
pubmed: 27661424
Z Rheumatol. 2013 Sep;72(7):709-13
pubmed: 23640244
Orthopade. 2015 Jun;44(6):419-25
pubmed: 25971241
Int Orthop. 2018 Sep;42(9):2077-2086
pubmed: 29178044
Z Orthop Unfall. 2014 Aug;152(4):334-42
pubmed: 25144842
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2020 Jan;30(1):123-131
pubmed: 31420732
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 Jun;(231):7-28
pubmed: 3370887
Unfallchirurg. 2016 May;119(5):421-7
pubmed: 27142510
Int Orthop. 2013 Dec;37(12):2351-6
pubmed: 23995334
Unfallchirurg. 2017 Apr;120(4):278-284
pubmed: 28235982
Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1980;185:1-208
pubmed: 6938104
Biomed Tech (Berl). 1987 Jul-Aug;32(7-8):177-83
pubmed: 2822156
J Orthop Res. 2017 Jun;35(6):1237-1241
pubmed: 27467497