Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39385465›Full record

ArticlePhysical therapy2025

Lower Extremity Osseointegration Postoperative Rehabilitation Protocols: A Scoping Review.

Matan Grunfeld, Taylor J Reif, S Robert Rozbruch, Jason S Hoellwarth

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Physical therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Consensus statement on prehabilitation and rehabilitation of osseointegration patients.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Matan GrunfeldSchool of Medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, United States.ORCID 0009-0009-5630-6459
Taylor J ReifOsseointegration Limb Replacement Center, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, United States.
S Robert RozbruchOsseointegration Limb Replacement Center, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, United States.
Jason S HoellwarthOsseointegration Limb Replacement Center, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveLower-extremity transcutaneous osseointegration is a rehabilitation alternative to socket-suspended prostheses. The rehabilitation process, philosophies, and routines remain under-described. This review, primarily, identifies commonalities and differences among protocols. Secondarily, strategies are proposed to streamline future research of post-osseointegration surgery rehabilitation.

methodsTwo differently-phrased queries of Google Scholar, Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science were performed. First using either "osseointegration" or "osseointegrated" or "bone anchored prosthesis" AND [last name]. Second, replacing author name with "physical therapy" or "rehabilitation". Six hundred eighty-eight articles were identified describing lower-extremity rehabilitation following osseointegration. Following software-based deduplication, manual abstract and full-text review, article reference evaluation, and use of Google Scholar's "Cited by" feature, 35 studies were fully analyzed. First, a consolidated summary was made of protocols focusing on stages, timing, and other descriptions of postoperative rehabilitation. Subsequently, strengths and limitations of protocols were considered to propose potential strategies to investigate and optimize postoperative rehabilitation.

resultsAll articles describe rehabilitation having this same order of goal progression: from surgery to gradual weight bearing and final goal of independent ambulation. The most impactful difference influencing the stated final goal of independent ambulation was whether one or two surgical stages were performed. No articles reported patient success rate achieving proposed goals and timing, or challenges during rehabilitation. Therefore, the first research suggestion is to investigate actual success rates achieving proposed goals and timing. Second, to further explore rehabilitation of performance deficits, beyond unaided ambulation. Finally, to incorporate technology such as mobility trackers to more objectively understand prosthesis use and mobility.

conclusionAll lower-extremity osseointegration rehabilitation literature recommends identical goal progression order. No studies evaluate patient challenges or variation. Understanding and addressing such challenges may enhance postoperative rehabilitation. IMPACT: This article consolidates published rehabilitation protocols post-osseointegration surgery. Specific analysis and experimentation of the protocols may enhance the uniformity and potential of patient rehabilitation.

Indexed as

Artificial LimbsBone-Anchored ProsthesisLower ExtremityOsseointegrationHumansAmputationLower-ExtremityOsseointegrationRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID39385465
PMCPMC11783572

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.