Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws.
R Adell, B Eriksson, U Lekholm...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2094653/Actively Recruiting
Led by Walter Reed National Military Medical Center · Updated on 2026-03-30
30
Participants Needed
2
Research Sites
104 weeks
Total Duration
Researchers are studying the OPRA osseointegrated prosthesis system in adults aged 22 to 65 with transtibial below-the-knee amputations. The study aims to measure and compare soft tissue complications and infections in patients treated with OPRA implants to those with transfemoral above-the-knee implants. It also evaluates improvements in physical function, quality of life, pain levels, physical performance, biomechanical loading, and bone quality over time, comparing OPRA users to traditional socket prosthesis users. Participants undergo two main surgical procedures to implant the OPRA device. In Stage I, the distal tibia is prepared and implanted with the fixture under imaging guidance. Stage II, performed 3 to 6 months later, involves attaching the abutment to the bone and creating a skin opening for prosthesis attachment. Follow-up visits are scheduled post-surgery at 2-3 weeks and then at 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months to monitor healing and implant performance. Throughout the study, participants complete various assessments including questionnaires on function, pain, quality of life, and mobility tests such as the 6-Minute Walk Test, Timed Up and Go, and Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry DEXA scans. Clinical exams, X-rays, and CT scans are performed regularly to monitor bone and soft tissue status. Data collection occurs at baseline and multiple follow-up points up to 60 months post Stage II surgery, ensuring comprehensive evaluation of safety, function, and patient-reported outcomes.
CONDITIONS
Transtibial Osseointegration
E
Emma L Stewart
Q
Qingfeng Liu
Explore thousands of other clinical trials that might be a better match.
Sign up to get personalized trial recommendations delivered to your inbox.
Already have an account? Log in here
Walter Reed National Military Medical Center
Lead Sponsor
This table compares participation in this trial with other options available for this condition. The information is drawn from published research and the trial’s study details and is provided for educational purposes only.
| Factors | OPRA Osseointegration Implant | Conventional Socket-Based Prosthesis |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A surgically implanted device that connects a prosthesis directly to the bone (osseointegration) of the lower leg. This eliminates the need for a traditional socket interface and the prosthesis is attached through a skin-penetrating connector. | A removable prosthetic leg in which the artificial limb is secured to the residual limb by a custom-molded socket that fits around the stump, typically used by most people with lower-limb amputation. |
| Role in the study | Studied as the sole intervention with outcomes tracked for up to five years in adults with transtibial amputation and socket prosthesis failure or intolerance. | Not evaluated within this trial; represents the main prosthesis type used prior to study enrollment and serves as the external clinical context. |
| Primary use | Designed to provide improved prosthetic attachment and use for people unable to tolerate or benefit from socket prostheses due to pain, skin issues, or poor stump fit. | Enables mobility for lower-limb amputees by providing a prosthetic leg that is held to the residual limb using a custom-fitted socket. |
| How it is given or performed | Implanted in two surgical stages: first, a fixture is anchored in the tibial bone; after several months of healing, an abutment is placed through the skin for prosthesis attachment. Requires post-surgical rehabilitation before full prosthetic use. | Non-surgical fitting of a custom-molded socket made to fit the individual's residual limb; adjustment and replacement are performed by a prosthetist as needed. |
| Evidence status | Clinical data support improvements in prosthesis use, mobility, and quality of life in highly selected patients unable to use sockets, but most available studies are limited in patient number and follow-up. Evidence base continues to develop. | Socket prostheses have been the standard for many decades, with longstanding use and extensive experience. However, some patients experience pain, poor fit, or skin breakdown, prompting consideration of alternatives. |
| Important limitations | Requires multiple surgeries and careful patient selection due to risks of infection, implant failure, and the need for ongoing care of the surgical site. Long-term safety and broad outcomes compared to sockets are still under study. | Common issues include pain, poor fit, skin irritation or breakdown, and limitations with activity levels. Socket problems can drive need for alternative solutions in certain patients. |
Disclaimer: This comparison is created with the help of artificial intelligence(AI) and may contain errors or missing information. It is not medical advice and does not mean one option is better or safer than another. Clinical trials are still being studied, and joining a trial is your choice. Please consult your healthcare professional before making any decisions.
You may qualify if you...
You will not qualify if you...
Duration - Up to 6 months prior to Surgery Stage I
Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial.
1 visit (in-person) for baseline assessments
Duration - Two stages: initial surgery (Stage I) followed by second surgery (Stage II) 3 to 6 months later
Participants undergo two-stage surgical procedures to implant the OPRA device to the amputated leg.
Postoperative visits 2-3 weeks after each surgery
Duration - Up to 60 months after Surgery Stage II
Participants are regularly assessed for performance and safety after surgery including questionnaires, physical performance tests, and imaging.
Follow-up visits at 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months post-Surgery Stage II
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Masking
NONE
Allocation
NA
Model
SEQUENTIAL
Primary Purpose
TREATMENT
Number of Arms
1
Have more questions? Get in touch with our team for quick support
R Adell, B Eriksson, U Lekholm...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2094653/R Adell, U Lekholm, B Rockler...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6809663/B Håkansson, P Carlsson
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2756338/Anna E McGlothlin, Roger J Lewis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25268441/Man Hung, Charles L Saltzman, Richard Kendall...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30179950/Yan Li, Bennie Lindeque
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29566253/Muhammad Adeel Akhtar, Jason Shih Hoellwarth, Shakib Al-Jawazneh...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34235362/Kerstin Hagberg
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29534624/R Brånemark, O Berlin, K Hagberg...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24395320/Ruud A Leijendekkers, Gerben van Hinte, Jan Paul Frölke...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30537856/Walter Reed National Military Medical Center
Lead Sponsor