Advantages of customization of osseointegrated implants in transfemoral amputees: a comparative analysis of surgical planning.
Amputation
Bone stock
Bone volume removal
Customized prostheses
Femur
Osseointegrated femoral implants
Personalization
Stem–bone contact area
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:
29 Aug 2024
29 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
03
06
2024
accepted:
23
07
2024
medline:
31
8
2024
pubmed:
31
8
2024
entrez:
29
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Commercially available osseointegrated devices for transfemoral amputees are limited in size and thus fail to meet the significant anatomical variability in the femoral medullary canal. This study aimed to develop a customized osseointegrated stem to better accommodate a variety of femoral anatomies in transfemoral amputees than off-the-shelf stems. Customization is expected to enhance cortical bone preservation and increase the stem-bone contact area, which are critical for the long-term stability and success of implants. A customized stem (OsteoCustom) was designed based on the statistical shape variability of the medullary canal. The implantability of the OsteoCustom stem was tested via 70 computed tomography (CT) images of human femurs and compared to that of a commercial device (OFI-C) for two different resection levels. The evaluations included the volume of cortical bone removed and the percentage of stem-bone contact area for both resection levels. Statistical significance was analyzed using paired and unpaired t tests. The OsteoCustom stem could be virtually implanted in all 70 femurs, while the OFI-C was unsuitable in 19 cases due to insufficient cortical thickness after implantation, further emphasizing its adaptability to varying anatomical conditions. The OsteoCustom stem preserved a greater volume of cortical bone than did the OFI-C. In fact, 42% less bone was removed at the proximal resection level (3.15 cm³ vs. 5.42 cm³, p ≤ 0.0001), and 33% less at the distal resection level (2.25 cm³ vs. 3.39 cm³, p = 0.003). The stem-bone contact area was also greater for the OsteoCustom stem, particularly at the distal resection level, showing a 20% increase in contact area (52.3% vs. 32.2%, p = 0.002) compared to that of the OFI-C. The OsteoCustom stem performed better than the commercial stem by preserving more cortical bone and achieving a greater stem-bone contact area, especially at distal resection levels where the shape of the medullary canal exhibits more inter-subject variability. Optimal fit in the distal region is of paramount importance for ensuring the stability of osseointegrated implants. This study highlights the potential benefits of customized osseointegrated stems in accommodating a broader range of femoral anatomies, with enhanced fit in the medullary canal.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Commercially available osseointegrated devices for transfemoral amputees are limited in size and thus fail to meet the significant anatomical variability in the femoral medullary canal. This study aimed to develop a customized osseointegrated stem to better accommodate a variety of femoral anatomies in transfemoral amputees than off-the-shelf stems. Customization is expected to enhance cortical bone preservation and increase the stem-bone contact area, which are critical for the long-term stability and success of implants.
METHODS
METHODS
A customized stem (OsteoCustom) was designed based on the statistical shape variability of the medullary canal. The implantability of the OsteoCustom stem was tested via 70 computed tomography (CT) images of human femurs and compared to that of a commercial device (OFI-C) for two different resection levels. The evaluations included the volume of cortical bone removed and the percentage of stem-bone contact area for both resection levels. Statistical significance was analyzed using paired and unpaired t tests.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The OsteoCustom stem could be virtually implanted in all 70 femurs, while the OFI-C was unsuitable in 19 cases due to insufficient cortical thickness after implantation, further emphasizing its adaptability to varying anatomical conditions. The OsteoCustom stem preserved a greater volume of cortical bone than did the OFI-C. In fact, 42% less bone was removed at the proximal resection level (3.15 cm³ vs. 5.42 cm³, p ≤ 0.0001), and 33% less at the distal resection level (2.25 cm³ vs. 3.39 cm³, p = 0.003). The stem-bone contact area was also greater for the OsteoCustom stem, particularly at the distal resection level, showing a 20% increase in contact area (52.3% vs. 32.2%, p = 0.002) compared to that of the OFI-C.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The OsteoCustom stem performed better than the commercial stem by preserving more cortical bone and achieving a greater stem-bone contact area, especially at distal resection levels where the shape of the medullary canal exhibits more inter-subject variability. Optimal fit in the distal region is of paramount importance for ensuring the stability of osseointegrated implants. This study highlights the potential benefits of customized osseointegrated stems in accommodating a broader range of femoral anatomies, with enhanced fit in the medullary canal.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39210457
doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-04944-0
pii: 10.1186/s13018-024-04944-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
520Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Windrich M, Grimmer M, Christ O, Rinderknecht S, Beckerle P. Active lower limb prosthetics: a systematic review of design issues and solutions. Biomed Eng OnLine. 2016;15(S3):140.
pubmed: 28105948
pmcid: 5249019
doi: 10.1186/s12938-016-0284-9
Brånemark R, Berlin Ö, 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 Jt J. 2014;96–B(1):106–13.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B1.31905
Brånemark R, Brånemark PI, Rydevik B, Myers RR. Osseointegration in skeletal reconstruction and rehabilitation: a review. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001;38(2):175–81.
pubmed: 11392650
Dunne S, Coffey L, Gallagher P, Desmond D. If I can do it I will do it, if I can’t, I can’t: a study of adaptive self-regulatory strategies following lower limb amputation. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(23):1990–7.
pubmed: 24533877
doi: 10.3109/09638288.2014.885993
Overmann AL, Forsberg JA. The state of the art of osseointegration for limb prosthesis. Biomed Eng Lett. 2019;10(1):5–16.
pubmed: 32175127
pmcid: 7046912
doi: 10.1007/s13534-019-00133-9
Anderst W, Fiedler G, Onishi K, McKernan G, Gale T, Paulus P. Within-subject effects of standardized prosthetic socket modifications on physical function and patient-reported outcomes. Trials. 2022;23(1):299.
pubmed: 35413866
pmcid: 9006565
doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06205-z
Lee KH, Heo HS, Kim J, Cho JH, Kim KT, Hur JY, et al. A pneumatically controlled prosthetic socket for Transfemoral amputees. Sensors. 2024;24(1):133.
doi: 10.3390/s24010133
Galteri G, Cristofolini L. In vitro and in silico methods for the biomechanical assessment of osseointegrated transfemoral prostheses: a systematic review. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023;11:1237919.
pubmed: 37662439
pmcid: 10469938
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1237919
Van de Meent H, Hopman MT, Frölke 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(11):2174–8.
pubmed: 23774380
doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.05.020
Leijendekkers RA, van Hinte G, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW, Staal JB. Gait rehabilitation for a patient with an osseointegrated prosthesis following transfemoral amputation. Physiother Theory Pract. 2017;33(2):147–61.
pubmed: 28045571
doi: 10.1080/09593985.2016.1265620
Reif TJ, Jacobs D, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Osseointegration Amputation Reconstruction. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep. 2022;10(2):61–70.
doi: 10.1007/s40141-022-00344-9
Lee WCC, Frossard LA, Hagberg K, Haggstrom E, Gow DL, Gray S, et al. Magnitude and variability of loading on the osseointegrated implant of transfemoral amputees during walking. Med Eng Phys. 2007;30(7):825–33.
pubmed: 17977050
doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2007.09.003
Hoellwarth JS, Tetsworth K, Kendrew J, Kang NV, van Waes O, Al-Maawi Q, et al. Periprosthetic osseointegration fractures are infrequent and management is familiar. Bone Jt J. 2020;102–B(2):162–9.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B2.BJJ-2019-0697.R2
Juhnke DL, Beck JP, Jeyapalina S, Aschoff HH. Fifteen years of experience with Integral-Leg-Prosthesis: Cohort study of artificial limb attachment system. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2015;52(4):407–20.
pubmed: 26348827
doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2014.11.0280
Örgel M, Petri M, Ranker A, Wirries N, Graulich T, Krettek C, et al. Management, outcome, and novel classification system of periprosthetic fractures in patients with transcutaneous osseointegrated prosthetic systems (TOPS)—a retrospective cohort analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022;142(7):1499–509.
pubmed: 33675390
doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-03826-y
Leijendekkers RA, van Hinte G, Frölke JP, van de Meent H, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MWG, Staal JB. Comparison of bone-anchored prostheses and socket prostheses for patients with a lower extremity amputation: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2017;39(11):1045–58.
pubmed: 27494092
doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1186752
Kunutsor SK, Gillatt D, Blom AW. Systematic review of the safety and efficacy of osseointegration prosthesis after limb amputation. Br J Surg. 2018;105(13):1731–41.
pubmed: 30307036
doi: 10.1002/bjs.11005
Karadsheh M. Orthobullets. [cited 2024 May 29]. THA Periprosthetic Fracture - Recon - Orthobullets. https://www.orthobullets.com/recon/5013/tha-periprosthetic-fracture .
Tanaka K, Sailer I, Iwama R, Yamauchi K, Nogami S, Yoda N, et al. Relationship between cortical bone thickness and implant stability at the time of surgery and secondary stability after osseointegration measured using resonance frequency analysis. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2018;48(6):360–72.
pubmed: 30619637
pmcid: 6312875
doi: 10.5051/jpis.2018.48.6.360
Thesleff A, Ortiz-Catalan M, Brånemark R. The effect of cortical thickness and thread profile dimensions on stress and strain in bone-anchored implants for amputation prostheses. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2022;129:105148.
pubmed: 35248873
doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2022.105148
Örgel M, Liodakis E, Jaratjitwilai P, Harb A, Wirries N, Omar M, et al. Three-year follow-up of changes of cortical bone thickness after implantation of endo-exo-prosthesis (EEP) for transfemoral amputees. J Orthop Surg. 2020;15(1):164.
doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01675-w
OPRA Implant System. Instructions for Use [Internet]. [cited 2024 Apr 23]. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf8/H080004S002D.pdf .
Galteri G, Palanca M, Alesi D, Zaffagnini S, Morellato K, Gruppioni E et al. Reliable in vitro method for the evaluation of the primary stability and load transfer of transfemoral prostheses for osseointegrated implantation. Front Bioeng Biotechnol [Internet]. 2024 Mar 21 [cited 2024 Apr 24];12. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/ https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1360208 .
Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH. Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987;69(1):45–55.
pubmed: 3818732
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.69B1.3818732
Lerch M, Kurtz A, Stukenborg-Colsman C, Nolte I, Weigel N, Bouguecha A, et al. Bone remodeling after total hip arthroplasty with a short stemmed metaphyseal loading implant: finite element analysis validated by a prospective DEXA investigation. J Orthop Res off Publ Orthop Res Soc. 2012;30(11):1822–9.
doi: 10.1002/jor.22120
Hagberg K, Ghassemi Jahani SA, Kulbacka-Ortiz K, Thomsen P, Malchau H, Reinholdt C. A 15-year follow-up of transfemoral amputees with bone-anchored transcutaneous prostheses. Bone Jt J. 2020;102–B(1):55–63.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B1.BJJ-2019-0611.R1
Roberts P, Chan D, Grimer RJ, Sneath RS, Scales JT. Prosthetic replacement of the distal femur for primary bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73–B(5):762–9.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.73B5.1894662
Aschoff HH, Juhnke DL. [Endo-exo prostheses: Osseointegrated percutaneously channeled implants for rehabilitation after limb amputation]. Unfallchirurg. 2016;119(5):421–7.
pubmed: 27142510
doi: 10.1007/s00113-016-0175-3
Muderis MA, Tetsworth K, Khemka A, Wilmot S, Bosley B, Lord SJ, et al. The Osseointegration Group of Australia Accelerated Protocol (OGAAP-1) for two-stage osseointegrated reconstruction of amputated limbs. Bone Jt J. 2016;98–B(7):952–60.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B7.37547
Kagan R, Adams J, Schulman C, Laursen R, Espana K, Yoo J, et al. What factors are Associated with failure of compressive osseointegration fixation? Clin Orthop. 2017;475(3):698–704.
pubmed: 26926774
doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4764-9
Atallah R, Leijendekkers RA, Hoogeboom TJ, Frölke JP. Complications of bone-anchored prostheses for individuals with an extremity amputation: A systematic review. PLOS ONE. 2018 ago;13(8):e0201821.
Khemka A, FarajAllah CI, Lord SJ, Bosley B, Al Muderis M. Osseointegrated total hip replacement connected to a lower limb prosthesis: a proof-of-concept study with three cases. J Orthop Surg. 2016;11(1):13.
doi: 10.1186/s13018-016-0348-3
Schwarze M, Hurschler C, Seehaus F, Correa T, Welke B. Influence of transfemoral amputation length on resulting loads at the osseointegrated prosthesis fixation during walking and falling. Clin Biomech. 2014;29(3):272–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.11.023
Kang N, Al-Ajam Y, Keen P, Woollard A, Steinitz H, Farrant J, et al. Radiological evaluation before and after treatment with an osseointegrated bone-anchor following major limb amputation—a guide for radiologists. Skeletal Radiol. 2024;53(6):1033–43.
pubmed: 38044373
doi: 10.1007/s00256-023-04524-z
Apostu D, Piciu D, Oltean-Dan D, Cosma D, Lucaciu O, Popa C, et al. How to prevent aseptic loosening in Cementless Arthroplasty: a review. Appl Sci. 2022;12(3):1571.
doi: 10.3390/app12031571
Apostu D, Lucaciu O, Berce C, Lucaciu D, Cosma D. Current methods of preventing aseptic loosening and improving osseointegration of titanium implants in cementless total hip arthroplasty: a review. J Int Med Res. 2018;46(6):2104–19.
pubmed: 29098919
doi: 10.1177/0300060517732697
Chantarapanich N, Sitthiseripratip K, Mahaisavariya B, Wongcumchang M, Siribodhi P. 3D geometrical assessment of femoral curvature: a reverse engineering technique. J Med Assoc Thai. 2008;91(9):1377–81.
pubmed: 18843867
Betti V, Aldieri A, Cristofolini L. A statistical shape analysis for the assessment of the main geometrical features of the distal femoral medullary canal. Front Bioeng Biotechnol [Internet]. 2024 Apr 10 [cited 2024 Apr 23];12. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/ https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1250095 .
Osseointegration Group. Osseointegration International launches the Type-D range of OPL [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Apr 25]. https://osseointegration.org/2023/02/23/osseointegration-international-launches-type-d/ .
OTN Implants. OTN Implants - BADAL X In- and Exclusion criteria. [cited 2024 Apr 23]. OTN Implants - BADAL X In- and Exclusion criteria. https://www.otnimplants.nl/inexclusion .
Reif TJ, Jacobs D, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR. Osseointegration Amputation Reconstruction. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep. 2022;10(2):61–70.
Atallah R, van de Meent H, Verhamme L, Frölke JP, Leijendekkers RA. A Eshraghi editor 2020 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 15 3 e0230027.
pubmed: 32150598
pmcid: 7062258
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230027
Singh ND. and M. Sample Size Calculator for Comparing Two Independent Means [Internet]. [cited 2024 Apr 23]. https://statulator.com/SampleSize/ss2M.html .
Aldieri A, La Mattina AA, Szyszko JA, Baruffaldi F, Viceconti M. HFValid collection: Hip-Fracture validation collection [Internet]. University of Bologna; 2023 [cited 2024 Apr 23]. https://amsacta.unibo.it/id/eprint/7277/ .
Cemented Total Hip Replacement. through the ABMS Approach | SpringerLink [Internet]. [cited 2024 Jul 4]. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-02059-9_8 .
Overview |. Hip fracture: management | Guidance | NICE [Internet]. NICE; 2011 [cited 2024 Jul 4]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg124 .
Zhang C, Yan CH, Zhang W. Cemented or cementless fixation for primary hip arthroplasty—evidence from The International Joint Replacement Registries. Ann Jt [Internet]. 2017 Oct 16 [cited 2024 Jul 4];2(10). https://aoj.amegroups.org/article/view/3848 .
Wu CC. Is clinical measurement of anatomic axis of the femur adequate? Acta Orthop. 2017;88(4):407–10.
pubmed: 28333575
pmcid: 5499332
doi: 10.1080/17453674.2017.1304788
Jung IJ, Choi EJ, Lee BG, Kim JW. Population-based, three-dimensional analysis of age- and sex-related femur shaft geometry differences. Osteoporos Int. 2021;32(8):1631–8.
pubmed: 33501569
doi: 10.1007/s00198-021-05841-6
Su Xyun, Zhao Jxin, Zhao Z, Zhang L, cheng, Li C, Li J et al. tao,. Three-Dimensional Analysis of the Characteristics of the Femoral Canal Isthmus: An Anatomical Study. BioMed Res Int. 2015;2015:459612.
Milligan DJ, O’Brien S, Bennett D, Hill JC, Beverland DE. The effects of age and gender on the diameter of the femoral canal in patients who undergo total hip replacement. Bone Jt J. 2013;95–B(3):339–42.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B3.30882
Uzel AP, Deloumeaux J, Rouvillain JL, Laflamme GY, Durandeau A, Caix P. Comparative study of femoral diaphyseal morphometry in two male populations, in France and a French West Indies island: an example of clinical relevance of comparative anatomy for orthopedic practice. Surg Radiol Anat SRA. 2011;33(3):235–40.
pubmed: 20811893
doi: 10.1007/s00276-010-0722-5
Atallah R. Safety of bone-anchored prostheses in lower extremity amputation [PhD Thesis]. Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; 2023.
Egol KA, Chang EY, Cvitkovic J, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ. Mismatch of current intramedullary nails with the anterior bow of the femur. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(7):410–5
Harper MC, Carson WL. Curvature of the femur and the proximal entry point for an intramedullary rod. Clin Orthop. 1987;(220):155–61
Thiesen DM, Prange F, Berger-Groch J, Ntalos D, Petersik A, Hofstätter B, et al. Femoral antecurvation-A 3D CT analysis of 1232 adult femurs. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(10):e0204961.
pubmed: 30300421
pmcid: 6177158
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204961
Liaw CK, Chen YP, Wu TY, Fuh CS, Chang RF. New Computerized Method in measuring the Sagittal bowing of Femur from Plain Radiograph—A validation study. J Clin Med. 2019;8(10):1598.
pubmed: 31623300
pmcid: 6832379
doi: 10.3390/jcm8101598
Wyatt M, Hooper G, Frampton C, Rothwell A. Survival outcomes of cemented compared to uncemented stems in primary total hip replacement. World J Orthop. 2014;5(5):591–6.
pubmed: 25405087
pmcid: 4133466
doi: 10.5312/wjo.v5.i5.591
Banducci E, Al Muderis M, Lu W, Bested SR. The safety of one-stage versus two-stage approach to osseointegrated prosthesis for limb amputation. Bone Jt Open. 2023;4(7):539–50.
pubmed: 37475711
pmcid: 10359829
doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.47.BJO-2022-0117.R1
Kagan R, Adams J, Schulman C, Laursen R, Espana K, Yoo J, et al. What factors are Associated with failure of compressive osseointegration fixation? Clin Orthop. 2017;475(3):698–704.
Mohamed J, Reetz D, van de Meent H, Schreuder H, Frölke JP, Leijendekkers R. What are the risk factors for mechanical failure and loosening of a Transfemoral Osseointegrated Implant System in patients with a lower-limb amputation? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022;480(4):722.
pubmed: 34889879
doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002074
Viceconti M, Pancanti A, Dotti M, Traina F, Cristofolini L. Effect of the initial implant fitting on the predicted secondary stability of a cementless stem. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2004;42(2):222–9.
pubmed: 15125153
doi: 10.1007/BF02344635
Hardy DC, Frayssinet P, Guilhem A, Lafontaine MA, Delince PE. Bonding of hydroxyapatite-coated femoral prostheses. Histopathology of specimens from four cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73(5):732–40.
pubmed: 1654335
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.73B5.1654335
Tonino AJ, Thèrin M, Doyle C. Hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems. Histology and histomorphometry around five components retrieved at post mortem. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81(1):148–54.
pubmed: 10068023
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.81B1.0810148
Søballe K, Gotfredsen K, Brockstedt-Rasmussen H, Nielsen P, Rechnagel K. Histologic analysis of a retrieved hydroxyapatite-coated femoral prosthesis. Clin Orthop. 1991;272:255–8.
doi: 10.1097/00003086-199111000-00038
Staedt H, Kämmerer PW, Goetze E, Thiem DGE, Al-Nawas B, Heimes D. Implant primary stability depending on protocol and insertion mode — an ex vivo study. Int J Implant Dent. 2020;6(1):49.
pubmed: 32880030
pmcid: 7468011
doi: 10.1186/s40729-020-00245-3
Glismann K, Konow T, Lampe F, Ondruschka B, Huber G, Morlock MM. Small design modifications can improve the primary stability of a fully coated tapered wedge hip stem. PLoS ONE. 2024;19(4):e0300956.
pubmed: 38630711
pmcid: 11023602
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300956
Walsh WR, Pelletier MH, Bertollo N, Lovric V, Wang T, Morberg P, et al. Bone ongrowth and mechanical fixation of implants in cortical and cancellous bone. J Orthop Surg. 2020;15(1):177.
doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-01696-5
Ong G, Hoellwarth JS, Testworth K, Al Muderis M. Techniques to remove Press-Fit Osseointegration implants. JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2024;14(1):e2300017.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.23.00017
Hansen RL, Langdahl BL, Jørgensen PH, Petersen KK, Søballe K, Stilling M. Does migration of osseointegrated implants for transfemoral amputees predict later revision? A prospective 2-year radiostereometric analysis with 5-years clinical follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res OTSR. 2019 ;105(5):1013–20.
Reetz D, Atallah R, Mohamed J, van de Meent H, Frölke 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(15):1329–35.
Hagberg K, Ghasemi Jahani SA, Omar O, Thomsen P. Osseointegrated prostheses for the rehabilitation of patients with transfemoral amputations: a prospective ten-year cohort study of patient-reported outcomes and complications. J Orthop Transl. 2023;38:56–64.
Integrum Implants. OPRA