• Hendrik Van de Meent, Maria T Hopman, and Jan Paul Frölke.
• Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen Centre of Evidence Based Practice, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: h.vandemeent@reval.umcn.nl.
• Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Nov 1; 94 (11): 2174-8.

ObjectiveTo investigate walking ability and quality of life of osseointegrated leg prostheses compared with socket prostheses.DesignProspective case-control study.SettingUniversity medical center.ParticipantsSubjects (N=22) with transfemoral amputation (1 bilateral) referred to our center because of socket-related skin and residual limb problems resulting in limited prosthesis use. Their mean age was 46.5 years (range, 23-67y) and mean time since amputation was 16.4 years (range, 2-45y). Causes of amputation were trauma (n=20) and tumor (n=2).InterventionImplantation of an osseointegration prosthesis (OIP).Main Outcome MeasuresGlobal score of the Questionnaire for Persons With a Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA), prosthesis use, 6-minute walk test (6MWT), Timed Up & Go (TUG) test, and oxygen consumption during treadmill walking.ResultsWith the socket prosthesis, the mean ± SD Q-TFA global score, prosthesis use, 6MWT, TUG, and oxygen consumption were 39±4.7 points, 56±7.9h/wk, 321±28m, 15.1±2.1 seconds, and 1330±310mL/min, respectively, and significantly improved with OIP to 63±5.3 points, 101±2.4h/wk, 423±21m, 8.1±0.7 seconds, and 1093±361mL/min, respectively.ConclusionsOsseointegration is a suitable intervention for persons whose prosthesis use is reduced because of socket-related problems. Subjects with OIP significantly increased their walking ability and prosthesis-related quality of life.Copyright © 2013 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

30 keywords...

hide…