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.

Overall, the results of this systematic review suggest that there is no longitudinal association between preoperative psychosocial factors and perceived or observed patient's postoperative functional recovery after total joint arthroplasty. The psychological category mental well-being is related to observed postoperative recovery >6 weeks through ≤3 months and to change score after total knee arthroplasty.

Objective:To analyze cost-effectiveness of Pain Exposure Physical Therapy compared to conventional treatment alongside a randomized controlled trial (NCT00817128) in patients with complex regional pain syndrome type 1, where no clinical difference was shown between the two groups in an intention-to-treat analysis.Design:Randomized controlled trial with 9 months follow-up.Setting:Patients were recruited from hospitals and general practitioners in the region around a university hospital.Subjects:A total of 56 patients, 45 (80.4%) female, were randomized. About 4 patients in the intervention and 11 patients in the conventional group switched groups. The mean (SD) age was 44.3 (16.6) years, and in 37 (66.1%) patients, the upper extremity was affected.Interventions:Patients received either Pain Exposure Physical Therapy (maximum of five sessions), or conventional treatment conforming with the Dutch multidisciplinary guideline.Main measures:For the economic evaluation difference between the groups in health-related quality of life (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)), and the clinical outcomes Impairment level Sum Score—Restricted Version and Pain Disability was determined based on the intention-to-treat analysis as well as differences in both healthcare-related costs and travel expenses. Cost-effectiveness planes were constructed using bootstrapping to compare effects and costs.Results:No significant effects were found for QALYs (mean difference = −0.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.10 to 0.04) and clinical outcomes. A cost minimization analysis showed a significant difference in costs between groups. The conventional treatment was 64% more expensive than the Pain Exposure Physical Therapy.Conclusion:This economic analysis shows that Pain Exposure Physical Therapy compared to conventional treatment is cost-effective.

We found some prerequisite factors in equipment provision and available dose important for treatment delivery. Other elicited factors related to, or affected, the required professional competencies and tools to tailor interventions to the complexity of interacting personal and contextual factors of patients and caregivers.