MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416500345 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.14.042

OUTCOMES OF LOWER LIMB OSSEOINTEGRATION: A SIX-YEAR EXPERIENCE AT THE MONTREAL OI CLINIC

2025· article· en· W4416500345 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nizar Algarni, Natalie Habra, L. Casu, Martin H. Pham, Robert Turcotte

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsseointegrationFemurAmputationImplantInformed consentTibiaOsteomyelitisOrthopedic surgeryLower limb

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study aims to evaluate clinical outcomes including functional improvements, implant survival, and complications investigate. We also inquired about the durability and sustainability of osseointegration and assess it's impact on patients. The study involves the analysis of the prospectively collected Montreal Osteointegration (OI) Clinic's Redcap database between March 2018 and April 2024. All provided informed consent and IRB authorization was given. The study includes patients with a minimum of six months of follow-up and involves data collection on various clinical parameters, including complications, and functional tests (2MWT, 6MWT, AMPPRO and TUG). There were 58 patients (59 implantation). Thirty-five underwent standard femur OI, five underwent short femur OI with custom locked implants and 18 underwent tibial OI, all with custom locked implants. Among the tibial OIs there is a patient with bilateral below knee amputation that got OI in the same setting. Follow up averaged 2.6 years (0.6-6.2 yrs). Age averaged 36 yrs at amputation (12-66 yrs) and 54 yrs at osseointegration (30-77yrs). Fractures during implant insertion occurred in 13 patients (22.3%); eight fractures occurred in femurs (including 2 in short femurs) and five in tibias. Five fractures were managed with cerclage wires while the others did not require additional management. Infections were categorized according to Al Muderis proposed classification. A total of 18 patients developed at least one post-operative infection (31%): 3 patients were Gr 2 (two 2 b and one 2 c). Three ultimately developed radiographical evidence of chronic femur osteomyelitis but doing well under chronic suppressive oral antibiotics (3 a). All the others were Gr 1a. Two patients experienced femur fractures after falling. One was intertrochanteric and did well after ORIF. The other was a greater trochanter undisplaced fracture was successfully managed conservatively. None of the OI implants failed or were revised. One wheelchair bounded case of congenital absence of pain with bilateral tibial OI sustained Charcot's bilateral tibial plateau fractures at 1 yr and managed with TKAs. One year later, while ambulating without aids at that time, he died unexpectedly from unidentified cause. The functional assessment conducted on patients at the 2-year mark yielded the following results: 2-Minute Walk Test (2MWT):): Pre OI minimum-maximum 0 - 170; 2 years post-OI minimum-maximum 89 - 180, with the mean 114.2 to 135.07 (P =0.0003). 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT): Pre OI minimum-maximum 0 - 495; 2 years post-OI minimum-maximum 210 - 514, with the mean 292.82 to 400.1 (P = 0. 0.00001). AMPPRO: Pre OI minimum-maximum 34 - 46, mean; 2 years post-OI minimum-maximum 38 - 46, with the mean 42.48 to 43.55 (P = 0.008). Timed Up and Go Test (TUG): Pre OI minimum-maximum 0-29; 2 years post-OI minimum-maximum 6.78-22.02, with the mean decreasing from 12.24 to 10.52 (p = 0.092). Our study supports osseointegration as a viable and beneficial procedure and contributes valuable insights for lower limb amputees doing poorly with socket prosthesis. We found no difference among the different level of amputation. It did improve function and most complication were manageable without implant revision or removal. Albeit frequent, infection remained minor in most. Chronic osteomyelitis could be managed so far with chronic oral antibiotic suppression.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic ProceedingsSame topicOrthopedic Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207