There is a need for a standard set of instruments. There was limited evidence that bone-anchored prostheses resulted in higher QoL, function and activity levels than socket prostheses, in patients with socket-related problems. Implications for Rehabilitation Use of bone-anchored prostheses in combination with intensive outpatient rehabilitation may improve QoL, function and activity level compared with socket prosthesis use in patients with a transfemoral amputation and socket-related problems. All clinicians and researchers involved with bone-anchored prostheses should use and publish data on QoL, function, activity and participation level. There needs to be an agreement on a standard set of instruments so that interventions for patients with a lower extremity amputation are assessed consistently.

Objectives:(1) To compare level of function, activity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and satisfaction in persons with a lower extremity amputation before surgery and 6- and 12-months after implantation of an osseointegration implant and (2) to report adverse events.Design:Prospective cohort study.Setting:University medical centre.Subjects:A total of 40 consecutive persons (median age: 56 years) who received a transfemoral (31) or transtibial (9) osseointegration implant, between April 2014 and March 2016.Intervention:Osseointegration implant surgery followed by a predefined rehabilitation programme.Main measures:Hip abductor strength, prosthetic use, back pain frequency, postoperative pain, mobility level (Timed-Up and Go (TUG) and wheelchair-boundedness), walking ability (6 minute walking test (6MWT) and walking distance in daily life), HRQoL, satisfaction regarding the prosthesis, and adverse events.Results:Strength, prosthetic use, walking distance, HRQoL, and satisfaction level increased significantly at 6- and 12-month follow-up compared to baseline (P ⩽ 0.002). The TUG showed no change at 6-month follow-up (P = 0.420) but improved significantly at 12-month follow-up compared to baseline (P = 0.005). Wheelchair-boundedness decreased from 12/40 participants at baseline to 0 at follow-ups. The 6MWT (P ⩾ 0.038) and back pain (P ⩾ 0.437) did not change over time. Stump pain was present in 28/39 and 22/40 of the participants at 6-and 12-month follow-up, respectively. The major adverse events were managed successfully and included three dual-cone breakages and four bone fractures. An uneventful course was completed by 19/31 transfemoral and 4/9 transtibial bone-anchored prostheses users.Conclusion:Bone-anchored prostheses lead to improved performance and appear to be safe, so they might be considered for persons with socket-related problems.

Background: In patients with a transfemoral amputation socket-related problems are associated with reduced prosthetic use, activity, and quality of life. Furthermore, gait asymmetries are present that may explain secondary complaints. Bone-anchored prostheses (BAPs) may help these patients. Two types of BAP are available, screw and press-fit implants. Rehabilitation following surgery for a press-fit BAP is poorly described. Purpose: To describe a rehabilitation program designed to minimize compensation strategies and increase activity using a case-report of an active, 70-year-old man with a traumatic transfemoral amputation who had used a socket prosthesis for 52 years and received a press-fit BAP [Endo-Exo Femoral Prosthesis -EEFP]. Intervention: A 13-week physiotherapy program. Outcomes: Outcomes were assessed before surgery, at the end of rehabilitation, and six-month and one-year follow-ups. After rehabilitation gait had improved, the patient had more arm movement, more pelvic shift, less hip rotation during swing phase on the prosthetic side, and absence of vaulting on the sound side. Isometric hip abductor strength was 15% higher on the sound side and 16% higher on the prosthetic side, and walking distance increased from 200 m to 1500 m. At the six-month follow-up, the patient had lower back complications and reduced hip abductor strength and walking distance. At oneyear follow-up, walking distance had recovered to 1000 m and gait pattern had improved again, with yielding and absence of terminal impact on the prosthetic side. Conclusion: The described rehabilitation program may be an effective method of improving gait in patients with an EEFP even after long-term socket usage.

Purpose Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is potentially lifesaving. However, it comes with negative consequences such as impaired physical functioning, fatigue and poor quality of life. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the effect of exercise and nutrition interventions to counteract negative consequences of treatment and improve physical functioning in patients receiving HSCT. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis included randomised controlled trials from three electronic databases between 2009 and 2020. The trials included adult patients receiving HSCT and an exercise or nutrition intervention. Study selection, bias assessment and data extraction were independently performed by two reviewers. Physical functioning outcomes were meta-analysed with a random-effects model. Results Thirteen studies were included using exercise interventions (n = 11) and nutrition interventions (n = 2); no study used a combined intervention. Meta-analysis of the trials using exercise intervention showed statistically significant effects on 6-min walking distance (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.41, 95% CI: 0.14–0.68), lower extremity strength (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.12–0.62) and global quality of life (SMD 0.27, 95% CI: 0.08–0.46). Conclusion Our physical functioning outcomes indicate positive effects of exercise interventions for patients receiving HSCT. Heterogeneity of the exercise interventions and absence of high-quality nutrition studies call for new studies comparing different types of exercise studies and high quality studies on nutrition in patients with HSCT.

No abstract