Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
[Online ahead of print]

Orthopaedic Osseointegration: Implantology and Future Directions

Affiliations
Review

Orthopaedic Osseointegration: Implantology and Future Directions

Archie L Overmann et al. J Orthop Res.

Abstract

Osseointegration (OI) is the direct anchorage of a metal implant into bone, allowing for the connection of an external prosthesis to the skeleton. Osseointegration was first discovered in the 1960s based on the microscopic analysis of titanium implant placed into host bone. New bone was observed to attach directly to the metal surface. Following clinical investigations into dentistry applications, OI was adapted to treat extremity amputations. These bone anchored implants, which penetrate the skin and soft tissues, eliminate many of the challenges of conventional prosthetic sockets, such as poor fit and suspension, skin breakdown, and pain. Osseointegrated implants show promise to improve prosthesis use, pain, and function for amputees. The successful process of transcutaneous metal integration into host bone requires three synergistic systems: the host bone, the metal implant, and the skin-implant interface. All three systems must be optimized for successful incorporation and longevity of the implant. Osseointegration begins during surgical implantation of the metal components through a complex interplay of cellular mechanisms. While implants can vary in design-including the original screw, press fit implants, and compressive osseointegration-they face common challenges to successful integration and maintenance of fixation within the host bone. Overcoming these challenges requires the understanding of the complex interactions between each element of OI. This review outlines (a) the basic components of OI, (b) the science behind both the bone-implant and the skin-implant interfaces, (c) the current challenges of OI, and (d) future opportunities within the field.

Keywords: amputation; military; osseointegration; trauma.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

REFERENCES

    1. Brånemark R. Osseointegrated prostheses for rehabilitation following amputation. Unfallchirurg. 2017;120(4):285-292.
    1. Gailey R, McFarland LV, Cooper RA, et al. Unilateral lower-limb loss: prosthetic device use and functional outcomes in servicemembers from Vietnam war and OIF/OEF conflicts. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010;47(4):317-16.
    1. Van de Meent H, P, Hopman MT, Frolke JP. Walking ability and quality of life in subjects with transfemoral amputation: a comparison of osseointegration with socket prostheses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(11):2174-2178.
    1. Häggström E, Hagberg K, Rydevik B, Brånemark R. Vibrotactile evaluation: osseointegrated versus socket-suspended transfemoral prostheses. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(10):1423-1434.
    1. Ogle OE. Implant surface material, design, and osseointegration. Dental Clinics of NA. 2015;59(2):505-520.

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback