Zusammenfassung Ziel Der Studie Durchgeführt wurde eine retrospektive Analyse der klinischen Ergebnisse und Komplikationsraten aller oberschenkelamputierten Patienten eines Zentrums, die mit dem neuesten Implantatdesign der sogenannten Endo-Exo-Femur-Prothese (EEFP, dritte Generation) versorgt wurden. Ziel ist es, spezifische Informationen zu Langzeitkomplikationen dieser Amputationsversorgungsform zu gewinnen. Methodik Im Januar 2019 wurden Daten aller Oberschenkelamputierten, die von 2010 bis 2016 an einer Akutklinik aus Schleswig-Holstein mit TOPS versorgt wurden, retrospektiv analysiert. Dies geschah unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der postoperativen Komplikationen. Hierfür wurden alle Untersuchungsbefunde der klinischen Routine-Nachsorge-Untersuchungen herangezogen. Die Komplikationen wurden unterteilt in Stomaprobleme, orthopädie-technische Probleme, Frakturen und Explantationen. Alle EEFPs besaßen das gleiche Implantatdesign (dritte Generation). Dieses Implantat findet derzeit als einziges TOPS in Deutschland klinische Anwendung. Eine deskriptive Statistik des Patientenkollektivs, sowie Verhältnisangaben über aufgetretene Komplikationen wurden berechnet. Ergebnisse Insgesamt wurden in diesem Zeitraum 68 Implantationen durchgeführt. Durchschnittliche Beobachtungszeit war 6,32 Jahre (±2,16 Jahre). Das mittlere Alter der Patienten betrug 51,84 Jahre±12,12 Jahre. Ursache der Amputation waren überwiegend Traumata (82,35%). Stoma-assoziierte Probleme zeigten mit 7% die höchste Inzidenz innerhalb aller beobachteten, patientenassoziierten Komplikationen und stellten die größten Herausforderungen während des Rehabilitationsprozesses dar. Betrachtet man nur die chirurgischen Komplikationen, so hatten 81% überhaupt keine Komplikationen. Insgesamt wiesen 15% orthopädie-technische Probleme auf, 6% eine peri-prothetische Fraktur, 7% Probleme am Stoma und 3% mussten aufgrund einer Infektion explantiert werden. Schlussfolgerung Die erhobene Datenanalyse zeigt, dass TOPS (hier die EEFP der dritten Generation) eine erfolgreiche alternative Behandlungsmethode zur Schaftprothesenversorgung für Patienten mit Oberschenkelknochenverlust darstellen können. Die Indikation sollte erst nach dem Versagen einer Schaftversorgung erfolgen und Kontraindikationen müssen umfassend ausgeschlossen werden. Die größten Herausforderungen im Rehabilitationsprozess stellen die Vermeidung von Stomakomplikationen, Infektionen und orthopädie-technischen Problemen dar. Die Rehabilitation von Amputierten, die mit TOPS behandelt werden, erfordert daher ein interdisziplinäres, spezialisiertes Rehabilitations-Team und eine lebenslange rehabilitative Versorgung.

Background Proximal femoral fractures are a major socioeconomic burden and they occur mainly in geriatric patients. High mortality and complication rates are reported. To reduce the mortality and morbidity of these patients, co-management with geriatricians has been recommended. Most previous studies have focused on relatively comprehensive care models. Models with only a few additions to the usual care have not been extensively evaluated. Methods This retrospective observational study included all patients aged ≥70 years (mean age: 84.5 ± 7.1 years, 70% women) with an isolated proximal femoral fracture treated surgically in our institution from May 2018 to October 2019. In the first 9 months, patients were treated with the usual care (control group, n = 103). In the second 9 months, patients were treated with our multidisciplinary care model (intervention group, n = 104), which included the usual care, plus: (1) one multidisciplinary ward round per week and (2) one “elective” operation slot per day reserved for proximal femoral fractures. Baseline characteristics and outcome measures of the hospital stay were extracted from electronic health records. A 3-month follow-up was conducted by phone. Results Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups (p > 0.05). The hospital stay was shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (7.8 ± 4.3 vs. 9.1 ± 4.5; p = 0.022). The intervention reduced the waiting time for surgery by more than 10 h (intervention: 25.4 ± 24.5 vs. control: 35.8 ± 34.1 h; p = 0.013). A structured phone interview was not performed in 30.9% of the cases. The model reduced the overall dissatisfaction rate by more than half (12.9% vs. 32.4%; p = 0.008). On the other hand, the groups had similar perioperative complication rates (25% vs. 24.3%; p > 0.9999) and mortality (4.8% vs. 3.9%; p > 0.9999) and they remained similar at the 3-month follow-up (complications: 20.3% vs. 17.6% p = 0.831, mortality: 18.2% vs. 15.0% p = 0.573). Conclusion We found that two additions to the usual proximal femoral fracture regimen could significantly improve the overall satisfaction rate, reduce the length of hospital stay and shorten the waiting time for surgery. In contrast to previous studies, we observed no significant improvements in complication or mortality rates. Further changes in the standard care might be needed for this purpose.

Purpose The aim of this retrospective analysis was to investigate and evaluate differences in functional outcome and satisfaction of patients treated with a TOPS and patients using socket prosthesis after transfemoral amputation. Methods This retrospective comprehensive analysis included patients from a single hospital, and was conducted between February 2017 and December 2018. Overall n = 139 patients with prosthesis were included and divided into two comparable groups (socket- and TOPS group). Incomplete data sets were excluded. This led to n = 36 participants for the socket- and n = 33 for the TOPS group. Functional outcome and satisfaction were evaluated by Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). The used PROMs were: Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA), EQ5D-5L, Satisfaction with Prosthesis Questionnaire (SAT-PRO), Prosthesis Mobility Questionnaire (PMQ 2.0) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Results Significant results in favor of TOPS patients were identified for the EQ-5D 5L (p = 0.004), Q-TFA (p = 0.000), SAT-PRO (p = 0.000) and PMQ 2.0 (p = 0.000). For FIM, no statistical significance was found (p = 0.318). Conclusion In this study, transfemoral amputees treated with an osseointegrated prosthetic attachment (TOPS) showed significantly higher scores for mobility and satisfaction. This demonstrates the high potential of TOPS in the prosthetic treatment of patients with transfemoral amputation with regard to their functional abilities in daily life.

This study aimed to compare, through Rasch analysis, the psychometric properties of the Locomotor Capabilities Index (LCI-5) and Prosthetic Mobility Questionnaire (PMQ 2.0) in German lower-limb prosthesis users. The questionnaires were concurrently administered to a convenience sample of 98 consecutively recruited individuals with lower limb amputation (LLA) (male/female = 61/37; mean age 57 ± 14 years). LCI-5 showed disordered rating scale thresholds (one response option in three items required collapsing); local dependence between two items (resolved by creating a testlet); underfit of one item (‘Get up from the floor’); and presence of a second weak dimension. PMQ 2.0 showed a correctly functioning rating scale; good fit of the data to the model (apart from some overfit); local dependence between two items (absorbed by creating a testlet); and essential unidimensionality. At scale co-calibration onto a common interval-scaled metric, PMQ 2.0 was better targeted than LCI-5 (i.e. the extent of item difficulty was more appropriate for the sample) and its operational range allowed a more precise measurement of higher locomotor abilities. The correlation between LCI-5 and PMQ 2.0 scores was rho =  0.78. In conclusion, LCI-5 revealed some drawbacks, confirming a previous Rasch study; refinement of its rating scale and item selection seems therefore warranted. The PMQ 2.0 demonstrated good overall measurement quality, in line with previous Italian and Slovene studies. The operational range of the PMQ 2.0 makes it more suitable than LCI-5 for assessing people with high locomotor abilities.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract