title: Comparison of bone-anchored prostheses and socket prostheses for patients with a lower extremity amputation: a systematic review.
abstract: This study aimed to provide an overview of a) the used measurement instruments in studies evaluating effects on quality of life (QoL), function, activity and participation level in patients with a lower extremity amputation using bone-anchored prostheses compared to socket prostheses and b) the effects themselves.
  
  
  
  A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science. Included studies compared QoL, function, activity and/or participation level in patients with bone-anchored or socket prostheses. A best-evidence synthesis was performed.
  
  
  
  Out of 226 studies, five cohort and two cross-sectional studies were eligible for inclusion, all had methodological shortcomings. These studies used 10 different measurement instruments and two separate questions to assess outcome. Bone-anchored prostheses were associated with better condition-specific QoL and better outcomes on several of the physical QoL subscales, outcomes on the physical bodily pain subscale were inconclusive. Outcomes on function and activity level increased, no change was found at participation level. The level of evidence was limited.
  
  
  
  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.
authors: a Department of Orthopaedics , Physical Therapy, Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.|b Master Clinical Health Sciences, Program in Physical Therapy Science , University Utrecht and University Medical Centre Utrecht , Utrecht , The Netherlands.
authors: Ruud A
authors: RA
authors: Leijendekkers
authors: a Department of Orthopaedics , Physical Therapy, Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.
authors: Gerben
authors: G
authors: van Hinte
authors: c Department of Surgery , Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.
authors: Jan Paul
authors: JP
authors: Frölke
authors: d Department of Rehabilitation , Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.
authors: Hendrik
authors: H
authors: van de Meent
authors: a Department of Orthopaedics , Physical Therapy, Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.|e Scientific Centre for Quality of Care, Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.
authors: Maria W G
authors: MW
authors: Nijhuis-van der Sanden
authors: e Scientific Centre for Quality of Care, Radboud University Medical Centre , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.|f Research Group Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, HAN University of Applied Sciences , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.
authors: J Bart
authors: JB
authors: Staal
mesh_terms: D000671:Amputation, Surgical / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D001186:Artificial Limbs; D015444:Exercise; D006801:Humans; D035002:Lower Extremity / Q000601:surgery*; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011788:Quality of Life; D020127:Recovery of Function; D062707:Return to Work; D053441:Suture Anchors
keywords: Functional outcome; lower extremity amputation; osseointegration; quality of life