Background: Germany lacks a unified system to track outcomes after lower limb amputation, limiting benchmarking and quality improvement. The Amputation (AMP) Registry was developed as the first nationwide digital platform to collect patient-centered data and strengthen rehabilitation and treatment processes. Objectives: This pilot study evaluated the feasibility and practicality of using an app-based, standardized registry for everyday documentation. Further, it characterized the cohort data and compared the key characteristics with those of international populations. Study Design: Multicenter, prospective pilot study of the AMP Registry across 12 German sites. Methods: Between August 2024 and July 2025, adults (≥18 years) with lower limb amputation were recruited. Data were collected via the “AMP Kompass” app using standardized patient- and expert-reported modules, including validated measures of mobility and pain. Descriptive statistics and subgroup analyses were performed by amputation level and etiology. Results: A total of 117 patient forms met completion criteria, while 13 expert forms were excluded for inadequate completion. Core modules showed high completion rates (>85%), while complex, open-ended modules had lower engagement. Amputations were most commonly transtibial (51.4%) or transfemoral (40.0%), with trauma (29.5%) and tumors (19%) as the leading causes. Trends indicated better function in transtibial and tumor-related amputations, with differing pain profiles, though without statistical significance. Conclusions: The AMP Registry pilot demonstrates that app-based, standardized data collection after lower limb amputation is feasible and well accepted. With broader recruitment, improved integration of complex modules, and further digital refinement, the registry can close evidence gaps, enable benchmarking, inform guidelines, and support patient-centered rehabilitation in Germany. Clinical Relevance: Structured documentation generates high-quality, patient-centered data that enables quality assurance, personalized therapy planning, and scientific evaluation. ( J Prosthet Orthot . 2026;XX:XX–XX)
Zeitzschel et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: