Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsCase Report / SeriesEurope PMC

Disruption of targeted muscle reinnervation due to heterotopic ossification in an amputated lower extremity

Anderson SR., Gupta N., Johnson EA., Johnson RM.

Case Report / Series on Knee, published in BMJ Case Rep (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Case Report / Series
Journal
BMJ Case Rep (2022)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
35568417
PMCID
PMC9109042
DOI
10.1136/bcr-2022-249705
Citations
2

Abstract (original English)

A patient in his late 40s presented after 1-year following below knee amputation and targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) with new prosthesis intolerance and pinpoint pain, suspicious for neuroma. X-ray confirmed fibular heterotopic ossification (HO). Operative revision identified HO encompassing a TMR construct with a large neuroma requiring excision and neuroplasty revision. Now approximately 1-year post procedure, the patient remains active, pain-free and ambulating with a prosthetic. Amputated extremities can be at risk for development of HO. Although described in literature, the pathophysiology and timeline for HO development is not well understood. Preventative measures for HO have been described, yet results remain variable. The gold standard for existing HO remains to be operative excision. Due to the unpredictable nature and debilitating presentation, risk of HO should be incorporated into patient-physician discussions. Additionally, new prosthetic intolerance absent of prior trauma should raise suspicion for possible HO development.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • Without an adequate control group, treatment effects cannot be separated from other factors.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence
Lower ExtremityMusclesHumansNeuromaOssification, HeterotopicAmputation, Surgical

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research