Logo image
Back
Evaluation framework to assess orthopaedic procedures
Conference presentation   Open access

Evaluation framework to assess orthopaedic procedures

Laurent Frossard
Australian Orthopeadic Association (AOA) ASM: Training Tomorrow's Orthopaedic Surgeon, 75th (Brisbane, Australia, 11-Oct-2015–15-Oct-2015)
Australian Orthopaedic Association
2015
pdf
PDF - Presentation11.51 MBDownloadView
PresentationPDF - Presentation Open Access
url
https://www.aoa.org.au/events/asm-meetingsView
Webpage

Abstract

Human Movement and Sports Science Biomedical Engineering oseeointegration bone-anchored prosthesis implant amputation evaluation framework
Introduction & aims: The demand for evidence of efficacy of treatments in general and orthopaedic surgical procedures in particular is ever increasing in Australia and worldwide. The aim of this study is to share the key elements of an evaluation framework recently implemented in Australia to determine the efficacy of bone-anchored prostheses. Method: The proposed evaluation framework to determine the benefit and harms of bone-anchored prostheses for individuals with limb loss was extracted from a systematic review of the literature including seminal studies focusing on clinical benefits and safety of procedures involving screw-type implant (e.g., OPRA) and press-fit fixations (e.g., EEFT, ILP, OPL). [1-64] Results: The literature review highlighted that a standard and replicable evaluation framework should focus on: • The clinical benefits with a systematic recording of health-related quality of life (e.g., SF-26, Q-TFA), mobility predictor (e.g., AMPRO), ambulation abilities (e.g., TUG, 6MWT), walking abilities (e.g., characteristic spatio-temporal) and actual activity level at baseline and follow-up post Stage 2 surgery, • The potential harms with systematic recording of residuum care, infection, implant stability, implant integrity, injuries (e.g., falls) after Stage 1 surgery. There was a general consensus around the instruments to monitor most of the benefits and harms. The benefits could be assessed using a wide spectrum of complementary assessments ranging from subjective patient self-reporting to objective measurements of physical activity. However, this latter was assessed using a broad range of measurements (e.g., pedometer, load cell, energy consumption). More importantly, the lack of consistent grading of infections was sufficiently noticeable to impede cross-fixation comparisons. Clearly, a more universal grading system is needed. Conclusions: Investigators are encouraged to implement an evaluation framework featuring the domains and instruments proposed above using a single database to facilitate robust prospective studies about potential benefits and harms of their procedure. This work is also a milestone in the development of national and international clinical outcome registries.

Details

Metrics

46 File views/ downloads
472 Record Views
Logo image