Background: For almost 30 years, bone-anchored prostheses have offered an alternative solution to prosthetic sockets by attaching the artificial limb directly to the femoral residuum by means of an osseointegration implant. Osseointegration implant surgery was introduced in our center in 2009. The aim of the present study is to report on safety, prosthesis-wearing time, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) for patients with femoral bone-anchored prostheses during a 5-year follow-up period. Methods: All patients who underwent implantation of a press-fit osseointegration implant between May 2009 and November 2013 were eligible for the present study. Implantation was performed in 2 stages. Adverse events included infectious complications (grade 1 to 4), aseptic loosening, breakage, stoma-redundant tissue, and stoma hypergranulation. Prosthesis-wearing time and HRQoL were measured with the Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA) prosthetic use score and global score, respectively. Results: Thirty-nine of 42 eligible patients were included. Thirty patients (77%) presented with some kind of infection (156 events in total), with 148 (95%) events being classified as grade 1 or 2 and 8 events (5%) being classified as grade 3; the latter 8 events occurred in 4 patients. There were no instances of septic loosening. The intramedullary stem of the osseointegration implant broke in 2 patients. In total, soft-tissue refashioning had to be done 30 times in 14 patients. The Q-TFA median prosthetic use and global scores improved significantly from 71 to 100 and from 33 to 75, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Despite the adverse events, patient prosthetic use and HRQoL improved significantly. Grade-1 and 2 infections were frequent but could mostly be treated with nonoperative measures. Most infections seemed to occur in the first 2 years and did not lead to deep infections. Two broken intramedullary stems were revised successfully. Current developments focus on reduction of infectious complications and prevention of osseointegration implant breakage. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

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 pressfit 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 One of the authors (HvdM) certifies receipt of personal payments or benefits, during the study period, in an amount of USD 10,000 to USD 100,000 from OTN Implants. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA approval status, of any drug or device before clinical use. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (registration number 2018-4962).

BackgroundThe 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?MethodsBetween 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 loosenin...