These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
287 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22907950)
1. Comparison of prosthetic costs and service between osseointegrated and conventional suspended transfemoral prostheses. Haggstrom EE; Hansson E; Hagberg K Prosthet Orthot Int; 2013 Apr; 37(2):152-60. PubMed ID: 22907950 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Osseointegrated Prosthetic Implants for People With Lower-Limb Amputation: A Health Technology Assessment. Ontario Health (Quality) Ont Health Technol Assess Ser; 2019; 19(7):1-126. PubMed ID: 31911825 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prostheses using osseointegrated fixation: Myth or reality? Frossard LA; Merlo G; Burkett B; Quincey T; Berg D Prosthet Orthot Int; 2018 Jun; 42(3):318-327. PubMed ID: 29119860 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Patients with unilateral transfemoral amputation treated with a percutaneous osseointegrated prosthesis: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Hansson E; Hagberg K; Cawson M; Brodtkorb TH Bone Joint J; 2018 Apr; 100-B(4):527-534. PubMed ID: 29629586 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A novel osseointegrated percutaneous prosthetic system for the treatment of patients with transfemoral amputation: A prospective study of 51 patients. Brånemark R; Berlin O; Hagberg K; Bergh P; Gunterberg B; Rydevik B Bone Joint J; 2014 Jan; 96-B(1):106-13. PubMed ID: 24395320 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Vibrotactile evaluation: osseointegrated versus socket-suspended transfemoral prostheses. Häggström E; Hagberg K; Rydevik B; Brånemark R J Rehabil Res Dev; 2013; 50(10):1423-34. PubMed ID: 24699977 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Outcome of percutaneous osseointegrated prostheses for patients with unilateral transfemoral amputation at two-year follow-up. Hagberg K; Hansson E; Brånemark R Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2014 Nov; 95(11):2120-7. PubMed ID: 25064778 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. UK trial of the Osseointegrated Prosthesis for the Rehabilitation for Amputees: 1995-2018. Matthews DJ; Arastu M; Uden M; Sullivan JP; Bolsakova K; Robinson K; Sooriakumaran S; Ward D Prosthet Orthot Int; 2019 Feb; 43(1):112-122. PubMed ID: 30112981 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Walking ability and quality of life in subjects with transfemoral amputation: a comparison of osseointegration with socket prostheses. Van de Meent H; Hopman MT; Frölke JP Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2013 Nov; 94(11):2174-8. PubMed ID: 23774380 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The process of becoming a user of an osseointegrated prosthesis following transfemoral amputation: a qualitative study. Hansen CH; Hansen RL; Jørgensen PH; Petersen KK; Norlyk A Disabil Rehabil; 2019 Feb; 41(3):276-283. PubMed ID: 28960110 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Osteomyelitis Risk in Patients With Transfemoral Amputations Treated With Osseointegration Prostheses. Tillander J; Hagberg K; Berlin Ö; Hagberg L; Brånemark R Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2017 Dec; 475(12):3100-3108. PubMed ID: 28940152 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of functional outcome and patient satisfaction between patients with socket prosthesis and patients treated with transcutaneous osseointegrated prosthetic systems (TOPS) after transfemoral amputation. Örgel M; Schwarze F; Graulich T; Krettek C; Weidemann F; Aschoff HH; Winkelmann M; Ranker A Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg; 2022 Dec; 48(6):4867-4876. PubMed ID: 35717545 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Cost Analyses of Prosthetic Devices: A Systematic Review. Donnelley CA; Shirley C; von Kaeppler EP; Hetherington A; Albright PD; Morshed S; Shearer DW Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2021 Jul; 102(7):1404-1415.e2. PubMed ID: 33711275 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of conventional socket attachment and bone-anchored prosthesis for persons living with transfemoral amputation - mobility and quality of life. Welke B; Hurschler C; Schwarze M; Jakubowitz E; Aschoff HH; Örgel M Clin Biomech (Bristol); 2023 May; 105():105954. PubMed ID: 37075546 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Modular socket system versus traditionally laminated socket: a cost analysis. Normann E; Olsson A; Brodtkorb TH Prosthet Orthot Int; 2011 Mar; 35(1):76-80. PubMed ID: 21515892 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Quality of life of persons with transfemoral amputation: Comparison of socket prostheses and osseointegrated prostheses. Pospiech PT; Wendlandt R; Aschoff HH; Ziegert S; Schulz AP Prosthet Orthot Int; 2021 Feb; 45(1):20-25. PubMed ID: 33834741 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Osseointegrated prostheses for the rehabilitation of amputees (OPRA): results and clinical perspective. Hoyt BW; Walsh SA; Forsberg JA Expert Rev Med Devices; 2020 Jan; 17(1):17-25. PubMed ID: 31931635 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Improving outcomes for amputees: The health-related quality of life and cost utility analysis of osseointegration prosthetics in transfemoral amputees. Handford C; McMenemy L; Kendrew J; Mistlin A; Akhtar MA; Parry M; Hindle P Injury; 2022 Dec; 53(12):4114-4122. PubMed ID: 36333155 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]