Observing a decreasing number of transfemoral amputations following infection of Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) we performed a retrospective case control study of all rehabilitated amputees in the HELIOS centre of rehabilitation for amputees, located in Bad Berleburg, Germany.

This study examines all patients who had undertaken a transfemoral amputation (TF) after infection of TKA since 2007.

Methods: retrospective case control study. The clinical reports of 355 patients with transfemoral amputation rehabilitated from 2007 to 2013 were systematically and statistically evaluated. In this period we rehabilitate 636 amputees.

Results: 9 patients – 2.53% of all TF-amputations suffered a loss of the lower extremity caused by an infection of TKA. 3 patients presented an infection only by MRSA (multiresistant Staph. aureus 33.33%), 2 patients only with MSSA (multisensible Staph. aureus); other 4 patients presented mixed infections with MRSE (multiresistant Staph. epidermidis), multiresistant Acinetobacter baumannii, E. coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeroguinosa.

Epidemiology: The mean age of the patients at time of amputation was 70.07 years, with 4 men and 5 women. Marital status: 6 patients are married (66.66%), 1 divorced, 1 widowed, 1 unmarried. All patients are retired. School-leaving qualifications: 7 elementary school (60.87%), 1 secondary school, 1 unknown. Health insurance: AOK 3 patients (33.33%), BKK 3 patients (33.33%), employers insurance 1 patients (11.11%) and 2 more patients. The medial time of hospitalization in the clinic for rehabilitation after suffering amputation because of infection of TKA was 29.22 days.

Mobility class of amputees at the beginning of hospitalization: class 0 (= non walkers) all 9 patients (100%). Mobility class of amputees at the end of hospitalization: class 0 (= non walkers) are 2 patients (22.22%), class 1 (= walking only inside) are 5 patients (55.55%), class 2 (= walking inside and a little outside) are 2 patients (22.22%), class 3 (= walking well inside and outside) no patient.

This retrospective case control study shows for the first time that amputation of the lower extremity following infection in TKA is rare – in our group we found 2.53%. In the national and international literature one does not find much research about transfemoral amputations caused by infection in TKA. In our clinic we notice a decreasing number.

Noting a decreasing number of transfemoral amputations following infection of Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) I studied a case of a patient which suffered an amputation following infection of TKA by MRSA. With assistance of all hospitals and the NHS it was able to classify all costs of this poor case.

This study exposes a drama of a person which received a Total Knee Arthroplasty in the right knee at 66.0 years. 2 weeks after the implantation of TKA she presented a wound secretion, the microbiology shows: MRSA, Pseudomonas aeroguinos and Streptococcus. 4 surgical revisions followed without removing the TKA. 35 month later, with 68.9 years it was indispensable to remove the TKA in a 6th operation, implanting a spacer with Vancomycine. 1 month later removing of the spacer and implanting a second cemented TKA in the 7th surgery. With 70.2 years the removal of the second TKA was necessary because of infection with Pseudomonas aeroguinosa and Morganelli morganii. Now implantation of another spacer with Vancomycine. 1 month later with 70.3 years removal of the spacer molding an arthrodesis of the knee using an intramedullary femur to tibia rod. After that 4 revision surgeries with changing the intramedullary rod some wound revisions followed, ending in the 23rd operation with a transfemoral amputation with 71.1 years – 5 years after primary TKA. 3 month after transfemoral amputation the patient presented high temperature and a secretion of the scarf of the TT-stump; microbiology: MRSA. 2 more surgeries are necessary to stop the infection.

This patient suffered over all 25 surgical procedures in 5.5 years. The hospitalization for acute infection of TKA led to 431 days in different hospitals in 33 months. Statement of charges from the hospitals € 74.046,92 in the last three years before amputation. Payments by the health insurance € 155.424,00 for all procedures. We will demonstrate the different costs of hospital procedures and distribution for the insurance for all performances.

Aims

Prior cost-effectiveness analyses on osseointegrated prosthesis for transfemoral unilateral amputees have analyzed outcomes in non-USA countries using generic quality of life instruments, which may not be appropriate when evaluating disease-specific quality of life. These prior analyses have also focused only on patients who had failed a socket-based prosthesis. The aim of the current study is to use a disease-specific quality of life instrument, which can more accurately reflect a patient’s quality of life with this condition in order to evaluate cost-effectiveness, examining both treatment-naïve and socket refractory patients.

Traditional socket prosthesis (TSP) rehabilitation for amputees is associated with substantial dissatisfaction due to poor mobility and pain from soft tissue squeezing. Osseointegration (OI), eliminates skin compression and prosthesis fit issues, providing superior mobility and quality of life (QOL) for most amputees. The potential for OI to benefit patients with exceptionally poor mobility is understudied. To address this knowledge gap, this project investigated the mobility and QOL changes. A retrospective review was performed to identify transfemoral amputees who presented with wheelchair-bound mobility (K0) and had at least five years of post-osseointegration follow-up. Outcome measures included changes in mobility (K-level, daily prosthesis wear hours, Timed Up and Go (TUG), 6 minute walk test (6MWT)) and QOL (Questionnaire for persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (QTFA); Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF36). Adverse events recorded included debridement for infection, implant revision surgery, fractures, and implant failures. 9 patients with mean age 48.2±7.7 (range 34-59) years were included. The proportion of patients achieving K-level >2 improved from 0/9=0% to [9/9=100%], p<0.001. The 6MWT improved from 0±0 to 320.65±57 meters (p<0.001). The TUG improved from incapable to 10.68±2.7 seconds (p<0.001). Statistically significant QOL metrics included QTFA global score (33.33±31 vs 68.52±21, p=0.039), SF36 physical component score (30.03±6.3 vs 42.34±12, p=0.023) and the SF36 mental component score (47.89±8.8 vs 51.95±10.4, p=0.332). Six patients required operative intervention to address complications. Five developed infections: three had debridement, and 2 required implant removal and reimplantation. Osseointegration does confer significant sustained mobility and quality of life improvement for wheelchair bound transfemoral amputees. All 9 K0 patients had statistically improved mobility and QOL after osseointegrated reconstruction. This supports osseointegration as an effective rapid and long-term rehabilitation alternative for patients who have the neurologic and muscular capacity to walk but are unable due to issues related to their TSP

Introduction. Transfemoral osseointegration (TFOI) for amputees has substantial literature proving superior quality of life and mobility versus a socketed prosthesis. Some amputees have hip arthritis that would be relieved by a total hip replacement (THR). No other group has reported performing a THR in association with TFOI (THR+TFOI). We report the outcomes of eight patients who had THR+TFOI, followed for an average 5.2 years. Materials & Methods. Our osseointegration registry was retrospectively reviewed to identify all patients who had TFOI and also had THR, performed at least two years prior. Six patients had TFOI then THR, one simultaneous, one THR then TFOI. All constructs were in continuity from hip to prosthetic limb. Outcomes were: complications prompting surgical intervention, and changes in subjective hip pain, K-level, daily prosthesis wear hours, Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (QTFA), and Short Form 36 (SF36). All patients had clinical follow-up, but one patient did not have complete mobility and quality of life survey data at both time periods. Results. Four (50%) were male, average age 52.7±14.8 years. Three patients (38%) had amputation for trauma, three for osteosarcoma, one each (13%) infected total knee and persistent infection after deformity surgery. One patient died one year after THR+TOFA from subsequently diagnosed pancreatic cancer. One patient had superficial debridement for infection with implant retention after five years. No implants were removed, no fractures occurred. All patients reported severe hip pain preoperatively versus full relief of hip pain afterwards. K-level improved from 0/8=0% K>2 (six were wheelchair-bound) to 5/8=63% (p=.026). At least 8 hours of prosthesis wear was reported by 2/7=29% before TOFA vs 5/7=71% after (p=.286). The QTFA improved in all categories, but not significantly: Global (40.0±21.6 vs 60.0±10.9, p=.136), Problem (50.2±33.2 vs 15.4±8.4, p=.079), and Mobility (35.9±26.8 vs 58.3±30.7, p=.150). The SF36 also improved minimally and not significantly: Mental (53.6±12.0 vs 54.7±4.6, p=.849) and Physical (32.5±10.9 vs 36.3±11.2, p=.634). Conclusions. THR+TFOI is a successful reconstruction option for amputees who desire relief from severe pain related to hip joint degeneration, and also the opportunity for improved mobility and quality of life that TFOI typically confers. In our cohort, the procedure proved safe: no associated deaths, no removals, one soft tissue debridement. Mobility improved markedly. Quality of life improved, but not to significant thresholds as measured by the surveys. THR+TFOI appears safe and reasonable to offer to transfemoral amputees with painful hip joint degeneration

Introduction. Transtibial osseointegration (TFOI) for amputees has limited but clear literature identifying superior quality of life and mobility versus a socketed prosthesis. Some amputees have knee arthritis that would be relieved by a total knee replacement (TKR). No other group has reported performing a TKR in association with TTOI (TKR+TTOI). We report the outcomes of nine patients who had TKR+TTOI, followed for an average 6.5 years. Materials & Methods. Our osseointegration registry was retrospectively reviewed to identify all patients who had TTOI and who also had TKR, performed at least two years prior. Four patients had TKR first the TTOI, four patients had simultaneous TKR+TTOI, and one patient had 1 OI first then TKR. All constructs were in continuity from hinged TKR to the prosthetic limb. Outcomes were: complications prompting surgical intervention, and changes in daily prosthesis wear hours, Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (QTFA), and Short Form 36 (SF36). All patients had clinical follow-up, but two patients did not have complete survey and mobility tests at both time periods. Results. Six (67%) were male, average age 51.2±14.7 years. All primary amputations were performed to manage traumatic injury or its sequelae. No patients died. Five patients (56%) developed infection leading to eventual transfemoral amputation 36.0±15.3 months later, and 1 patient had a single debridement six years after TTOI with no additional surgery in the subsequent two years. All patients who had transfemoral amputation elected for and received transfemoral osseointegration, and no infections occurred, although one patient sustained a periprosthetic fracture which was managed with internal fixation and implant retention and walks independently. The proportion of patients who wore their prosthesis at least 8 hours daily was 5/9=56%, versus 7/9=78% (p=.620). Even after proximal level amputation, the QTFA scores improved versus prior to TKR+TTOI, although not significantly: Global (45.2±20.3 vs 66.7±27.6, p=.179), Problem (39.8±19.8 vs 21.5±16.8, p=.205), Mobility (54.8±28.1 vs 67.7±25.0, p=.356). SF36 changes were also non-significant: Mental (58.6±7.0 vs 46.1±11.0, p=.068), Physical (34.3±6.1 vs 35.2±13.7, p=.904). Conclusions. TKR+TTOI presents a high risk for eventual infection prompting subsequent transfemoral amputation. Although none of these patients died, in general, TKR infection can lead to patient mortality. Given the exceptional benefit to preserving the knee joint to preserve amputee mobility and quality of life, it would be devastating to flatly force transtibial amputees with severe degenerative knee joint pain and unable to use a socket prosthesis to choose between TTOI but a painful knee, or preemptive transfemoral amputation for transfemoral osseointegration. Therefore, TTOI for patients who also request TKR must be considered cautiously. Given that this frequency of infection does not occur in patients who have total hip replacement in association with transfemoral osseointegration, the underlying issue may not be that linked joint replacement with osseointegrated limb replacement is incompatible, but may require further consideration of biological barriers to ascending infection and/or significant changes to implant design, surgical technique, or other yet-uncertain factors