Clinical Outcomes of Bone-Anchored Versus Socket-Suspended Prostheses in Individuals With Transfemoral Amputation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Two-Arm Comparative Studies

Janice Tan Sue Wei , Wen Xian Low , Chris Bretherton

Orthopaedic Surgery ›› 2026, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (8) : 1545 -1562.

PDF (2115KB)
Orthopaedic Surgery ›› 2026, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (8) :1545 -1562. DOI: 10.1111/os.70369
REVIEW ARTICLE
Clinical Outcomes of Bone-Anchored Versus Socket-Suspended Prostheses in Individuals With Transfemoral Amputation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Two-Arm Comparative Studies
Author information +
History +
PDF (2115KB)

Abstract

Bone-anchored prostheses (BAP) provide an alternative to traditional socket-suspended prostheses (SSP) for individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA) by addressing socket-related complications. While most previous studies, primarily single-arm trials, report positive outcomes with BAP, these findings may be overestimated due to lower preoperative baseline function among individuals using SSP prior to BAP implantation. This review aims to offer a more balanced comparison of functional and clinical outcomes between BAP and SSP by focusing exclusively on two-arm comparative studies. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted from December 2024 to May 2025, following PRISMA guidelines. Databases including PUBMED, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science were searched. All studies meeting the inclusion criteria were cross-sectional in design. Primary outcomes included mobility (Timed Up and Go [TUG]; Activities-specific Balance Confidence [ABC]) and quality of life (Q-TFA domains). Secondary outcomes: gait parameters, hip range of motion (ROM), osseoperception, and costs. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I adapted for observational designs. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. Twelve studies (BAP n = 200; SSP n = 244) met criteria. Pooled analyses showed no significant differences for TUG (MD 0.16 s, 95% CI −2.09 to 2.41; I2 = 0%), ABC (MD 0.05, 95% CI −22.19 to 22.29; I2 = 76.3), Q-TFA Global (MD 1.14, 95% CI −22.02 to 24.30), Q-TFA Prosthetic Mobility (MD 0.37, 95% CI −9.93 to 10.68), Q-TFA Problems (MD –6.29, 95% CI –18.77 to 6.19), Q-TFA Prosthesis Use (MD 1.18, 95% CI −2.36 to 4.71), and gait speed (MD −0.03 m/s, 95% CI −0.31 to 0.25). Hip ROM tended to be higher with BAP in two studies; osseoperception favored BAP in two studies; one study reported on lower long-term cost with BAP. No comparative studies of infection were identified. While BAP is a promising alternative for individuals experiencing complications with SSP, its benefits for functional SSP users remain uncertain. The lack of comparative studies evaluating infection rates highlights an important area for future research.

Keywords

bone-anchored prostheses / cost / gait / mobility / osseoperception / quality of life / range of motion / socket prostheses / transfemoral

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
Janice Tan Sue Wei, Wen Xian Low, Chris Bretherton. Clinical Outcomes of Bone-Anchored Versus Socket-Suspended Prostheses in Individuals With Transfemoral Amputation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Two-Arm Comparative Studies. Orthopaedic Surgery, 2026, 18 (8) : 1545-1562 DOI:10.1111/os.70369

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户 忘记密码

References

[1]

C. Fanciullacci, Z. McKinney, V. Monaco, et al., “Survey of Transfemoral Amputee Experience and Priorities for the User-Centered Design of Powered Robotic Transfemoral Prostheses,” Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 18, no. 1 (2021): 168.

[2]

A. T. H. Brix, K. H. Rubin, T. Nymark, H. Schmal, and M. Lindberg-Larsen, “Mortality After Major Lower Extremity Amputation and Association With Index Level: A Cohort Study Based on 11,205 First-Time Amputations From Nationwide Danish Databases,” Acta Orthopaedica 95 (2024): 358–363.

[3]

J. Hoellwarth, K. Tetsworth, F. Md, et al., “Osseointegration for Amputees: Current Implants, Techniques, and Future Directions,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Reviews 8, no. 3 (2020): e0043.

[4]

S. Parithimarkalaignan and T. V. Padmanabhan, “Osseointegration: An Update,” Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 13, no. 1 (2013): 2–6.

[5]

M. Zaid, R. O'Donnell, B. Potter, J. Forsberg, and P. Md, “Orthopaedic Osseointegration: State of the Art,” Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 27, no. 22 (2019): e977–e985.

[6]

Ontario Health (Quality), “Osseointegrated Prosthetic Implants for People With Lower-Limb Amputation: A Health Technology Assessment,” Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 19, no. 7 (2019): 1–126.

[7]

L. Frossard, S. Laux, M. Geada, P. Heym, and K. Lechler, “Load Applied on Osseointegrated Implant by Transfemoral Bone-Anchored Prostheses Fitted With State-Of-The-Art Prosthetic Components,” Clinical Biomechanics 89 (2021): 105457.

[8]

W. Niswander, W. Wang, and A. P. Baumann, “Characterizing Loads at Transfemoral Osseointegrated Implants,” Medical Engineering & Physics 84 (2020): 103–114.

[9]

P. Stenlund, M. Trobos, J. Lausmaa, R. Branemark, P. Thomsen, and A. Palmquist, “Effect of Load on the Bone Around Bone-Anchored Amputation Prostheses,” Journal of Orthopaedic Research 35, no. 5 (2017): 1113–1122.

[10]

L. Frossard, S. Laux, M. Geada, L. Tronicke, T. Fridriksson, and K. Lechler, “Evidence-Based Recommendation of a Powered Knee for Transfemoral Bone-Anchored Prostheses: A Cross-Sectional Study,” Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal 8, no. 2 (2025): 45790.

[11]

B. W. Hoyt, S. A. Walsh, and J. A. Forsberg, “Osseointegrated Prostheses for the Rehabilitation of Amputees (OPRA): Results and Clinical Perspective,” Expert Review of Medical Devices 17, no. 1 (2020): 17–25.

[12]

Y. Li and L. Fellabder-Tsai, “The Bone Anchored Prostheses for Amputees-Historical Development, Current Status, and Future Aspects,” Biomaterials 273 (2021): 120836.

[13]

G. G. Black, A. M. Vaeth, Y. Chen, et al., “Osseointegration for Lower Limb Amputation: Understanding the Risk Factors and Time Courses of Soft Tissue Complications,” Annals of Plastic Surgery 90, no. 6S Suppl 5 (2023): S452–S456.

[14]

M. Al Muderis, A. Khemka, S. J. Lord, H. Van de Meent, and J. P. Frölke, “Safety of Osseointegrated Implants for Transfemoral Amputees: A Two-Center Prospective Cohort Study,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 98, no. 11 (2016): 900–909.

[15]

E. Hansson, K. Hagberg, M. Cawson, and T. H. Brodtkorb, “Patients With Unilateral Transfemoral Amputation Treated With a Percutaneous Osseointegrated Prosthesis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis,” Bone & Joint Journal 100-b, no. 4 (2018): 527–534.

[16]

M. M. Al Muderis, W. Y. Lu, J. J. Li, et al., “Clinically Relevant Outcome Measures Following Limb Osseointegration; Systematic Review of the Literature,” Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 32, no. 2 (2018): E64–E75.

[17]

J. S. Hebert, M. Rehani, and R. Stiegelmar, “Osseointegration for Lower-Limb Amputation: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes,” JBJS Reviews 5, no. 10 (2017): e10.

[18]

S. K. Kunutsor, D. Gillatt, and A. W. Blom, “Systematic Review of the Safety and Efficacy of Osseointegration Prosthesis After Limb Amputation,” British Journal of Surgery 105, no. 13 (2018): 1731–1741.

[19]

M. Rehani, T. Stafinski, J. Round, C. A. Jones, and J. S. Hebert, “Bone-Anchored Prostheses for Transfemoral Amputation: A Systematic Review of Outcomes, Complications, Patient Experiences, and Cost-Effectiveness,” Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences 5 (2024): 5.

[20]

R. Atallah, R. A. Leijendekkers, T. J. Hoogeboom, and J. P. Frölke, “Complications of Bone-Anchored Prostheses for Individuals With an Extremity Amputation: A Systematic Review,” PLoS One 13, no. 8 (2018): e0201821.

[21]

C. Gerzina, E. Potter, A. M. Haleem, and S. Dabash, “The Future of the Amputees With Osseointegration: A Systematic Review of Literature,” Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma 11, no. Suppl 1 (2020): S142–S148.

[22]

R. A. Leijendekkers, G. van Hinte, J. P. Frölke, H. van de Meent, M. W. G. Nijhuis-van der Sanden, and J. B. Staal, “Comparison of Bone-Anchored Prostheses and Socket Prostheses for Patients With a Lower Extremity Amputation: A Systematic Review,” Disability and Rehabilitation 39, no. 11 (2017): 1045–1058.

[23]

J. Tan, N. Zilani, R. Karim, and B. Patel, “Comparison of Quality of Life in Transfemoral Amputee Using Bone-Anchored Prostheses vs. Socket Prostheses: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Orthopaedic Surgery 17, no. 8 (2025): 2234–2254.

[24]

M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, et al., “The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews,” BMJ 372 (2021): n71.

[25]

M. A.-B. A. Janati, “Population, Intervention, Com- Parison, Outcomes and Study (PICOS) Design as a Framework to for- Mulate Eligibility Criteria in Systematic Reviews,” Emergency Medicine Journal 37 (2020): 387.

[26]

M. Ouzzani, H. Hammady, Z. Fedorowicz, and A. Elmagarmid, “Rayyan—A Web and Mobile App for Systematic Reviews,” Systematic Reviews 5, no. 1 (2016): 210.

[27]

J. Sterne and J. Higgins, “ROBINS-I V2: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions (Draft): Medical Research Council (MRC) and Cochrane Bias Methods Group,” 2024, https://www.riskofbias.info/welcome/robins-i-v2.

[28]

G. Guyatt, A. D. Oxman, E. A. Akl, et al., “GRADE Guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE Evidence Profiles and Summary of Findings Tables,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64, no. 4 (2011): 383–394.

[29]

S. Möller, K. Hagberg, and N. Ramstrand, “Cognitive Load in Individuals With a Transfemoral Amputation During Single- and Dual-Task Walking: A Pilot Study of Brain Activity in People Using a Socket Prosthesis or a Bone-Anchored Prosthesis,” Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 56 (2024): jrm40111.

[30]

V. Kooiman, J. van der Cruijsen, R. Leijendekkers, N. Verdonschot, T. Solis-Escalante, and V. Weerdesteyn, “The Influence of Prosthetic Suspension on Gait and Cortical Modulations Is Persons With a Transfemoral Amputation: Socket-Suspended Versus Bone-Anchored Prosthesis,” Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 21, no. 1 (2024): 35.

[31]

B. Welke, C. Hurschler, M. Schwarze, E. Jakubowitz, H.-H. Aschoff, and M. Örgel, “Comparison of Conventional Socket Attachment and Bone-Anchored Prosthesis for Persons Living With Transfemoral Amputation – Mobility and Quality of Life,” Clinical Biomechanics 105 (2023): 105954.

[32]

S. Ranaldi, A. Naaim, C. D. Marchis, et al., “Walking Ability of Individuals Fitted With Transfemoral Bone-Anchored Prostheses: A Comparative Study of Gait Parameters,” Clinical Rehabilitation 37, no. 12 (2023): 1670–1683.

[33]

M. Örgel, M. Elareibi, T. Graulich, et al., “Osseoperception in Transcutaneous Osseointegrated Prosthetic Systems (TOPS) After Transfemoral Amputation: A Prospective Study,” Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 143, no. 2 (2023): 603–610.

[34]

R. S. Gailey, A. Kristal, M. Al Muderis, et al., “Comparison of Prosthetic Mobility and Balance in Transfemoral Amputees With Bone-Anchored Prosthesis vs. Socket Prosthesis,” Prosthetics and Orthotics International 47, no. 2 (2023): 130–136.

[35]

V. Kooiman, L. Haket, N. Verdonschot, R. Leijendekkers, and V. Weerdesteyn, “Oxygen Consumption and Gait Dynamics in Transfemoral Bone-Anchored Prosthesis Users Compared to Socket-Prosthesis Users: A Cross-Sectional Study,” Gait & Posture 103 (2023): 12–18.

[36]

M. Örgel, F. Schwarze, T. Graulich, et al., “Comparison of Functional Outcome and Patient Satisfaction Between Patients With Socket Prosthesis and Patients Treated With Transcutaneous Osseointegrated Prosthetic Systems (TOPS) After Transfemoral Amputation,” European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 48, no. 6 (2022): 4867–4876.

[37]

P. T. Pospiech, R. Wendlandt, H. H. Aschoff, S. Ziegert, and A. P. Schulz, “Quality of Life of Persons With Transfemoral Amputation: Comparison of Socket Prostheses and Osseointegrated Prostheses,” Prosthetics and Orthotics International 45, no. 1 (2021): 20–25.

[38]

E. Häggström, K. Hagberg, B. Rydevik, and R. Brånemark, “Vibrotactile Evaluation: Osseointegrated Versus Socket-Suspended Transfemoral Prostheses,” Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 50 (2014): 1423–1434.

[39]

E. E. Haggstrom, E. Hansson, and K. Hagberg, “Comparison of Prosthetic Costs and Service Between Osseointegrated and Conventional Suspended Transfemoral Prostheses,” Prosthetics and Orthotics International 37, no. 2 (2013): 152–160.

[40]

K. Hagberg, E. Häggström, M. Uden, and R. Brånemark, “Socket Versus Bone-Anchored Trans-Femoral Prostheses: Hip Range of Motion and Sitting Comfort,” Prosthetics and Orthotics International 29, no. 2 (2005): 153–163.

[41]

S. Sinclair, J. P. Beck, J. Webster, et al., “The First FDA Approved Early Feasibility Study of a Novel Percutaneous Bone Anchored Prosthesis for Transfemoral Amputees: A Prospective 1-Year Follow-Up Cohort Study,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 103, no. 11 (2022): 2092–2104.

[42]

H. Van de Meent, M. T. Hopman, and J. P. Frölke, “Walking Ability and Quality of Life in Subjects With Transfemoral Amputation: A Comparison of Osseointegration With Socket Prostheses,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 94, no. 11 (2013): 2174–2178.

[43]

M. A. Muderis, W. Lu, V. Glatt, and K. Tetsworth, “Two-Stage Osseointegrated Reconstruction of Post-Traumatic Unilateral Transfemoral Amputees,” Military Medicine 183, no. suppl_1 (2018): 496–502.

[44]

B. M. M. Gaffney, D. Gimarc, P. B. Thomsen-Freitas, et al., “Associations Between Skeletal Alignment and Biomechanical Symmetry Before and After Transfemoral Bone-Anchored Limb Implantation,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 483, no. 5 (2025): 902–914.

[45]

J. B. Tracy, B. M. M. Gaffney, P. B. Thomsen, et al., “Dynamic Gait Stability and Stability Symmetry for People With Transfemoral Amputation: A Case-Series of 19 Individuals With Bone-Anchored Limbs,” Journal of Biomechanics 171 (2024): 112208.

[46]

G. BMM, P. B. Thomsen, R. A. Leijendekkers, C. L. Christiansen, and J. W. Stoneback, “Lumbopelvic Movement Coordination During Walking Improves With Transfemoral Bone Anchored Limbs: Implications for Low Back Pain,” Gait & Posture 109 (2024): 318–326.

[47]

P. B. Thomsen, G. BMM, J. B. Tracy, et al., “Cumulative Loading Increases and Loading Asymmetries Persist During Walking for People With a Transfemoral Bone-Anchored Limb,” Gait & Posture 113 (2024): 46–52.

[48]

A. Pantall and D. Ewins, “Muscle Activity During Stance Phase of Walking: Comparison of Males With Transfemoral Amputation With Osseointegrated Fixations to Nondisabled Male Volunteers,” Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 50, no. 4 (2013): 499–514.

[49]

L. Frossard, D. Berg, G. Merlo, T. Quincey, and B. Burkett, “Cost Comparison of Socket-Suspended and Bone-Anchored Transfemoral Prostheses,” JPO 29, no. 4 (2017): 150–160.

[50]

D. Berg and L. Frossard, “Health Service Delivery and Economic Evaluation of Limb Lower Bone-Anchored Prostheses: A Summary of the Queensland Artificial Limb Service's Experience,” Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal 4, no. 2 (2021): 36210.

[51]

L. A. Frossard, G. Merlo, B. Burkett, T. Quincey, and D. Berg, “Cost-Effectiveness of Bone-Anchored Prostheses Using Osseointegrated Fixation: Myth or Reality?,” Prosthetics and Orthotics International 42, no. 3 (2018): 318–327.

Rights & permissions

2026 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

PDF (2115KB)

0

Accesses

0

Citation

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/

〈 〉