Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 17, 2026
Oscillation and Reaction Board Techniques for Estimating Inertial Properties of a Below-knee Prosthesis
Published on: May 8, 2014
Bone-Anchored Prostheses for Transtibial Amputation: A Systematic Review of Outcomes, Complications, and
Mayank Rehani1, Diana Zidarov2, Natalie Habra3
1Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, College of Health Sciences, 5-005 Katz Group Centre for Pharmacy and Health Research, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Objective:
To systematically review (following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] guidelines) clinical outcomes and complications of transtibial osseointegration and identify benefits, risks, and knowledge gaps relevant to patients, clinicians, and policymakers.
Data Sources:
A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PEDro, Health Technology Assessment, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database was conducted from inception to April 30, 2026.
Study Selection:
On the basis of a published a priori protocol, 2 independent reviewers evaluated articles on adults with transtibial amputation that compared outcomes before and after osseointegration surgery for any follow-up duration, with socket or no prosthesis as comparators. Of 3823 articles screened, 19 met inclusion criteria, involving 102 individuals: 15 reported clinical outcomes (12 also reported complications), 3 focused solely on complications, and 1 examined cost-effectiveness.
Data Extraction:
Study characteristics, outcomes data, adverse events, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and surgical/rehabilitation details were extracted. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence were assigned and risk of bias was assessed via modified Downs and Black checklist for nonrandomized studies and Drummond checklist for economic evaluations.
Data Synthesis:
Most studies were based on press-fit fixation and short follow-up (1-3 years). Reported benefits included improved health-related quality of life, mobility, and prosthesis use. Superficial infection was the most common adverse event, generally managed with oral antibiotics; serious complications, such as implant loosening leading to implant loss, were less common. No periprosthetic fractures or implant breakages were reported. No qualitative studies were found. The single cost-effectiveness study used estimated utilities and limited costs, restricting broader economic conclusions.
Conclusions:
Transtibial osseointegration shows potential to enhance quality of life, mobility, and prosthesis use for individuals unable to tolerate sockets but carries infection risks that necessitate careful management. Larger, long-term studies and health economic evaluations are needed to strengthen evidence for more informed clinical and policy decision-making.
