BACKGROUND: Using the new modular socket system (MSS) to produce a prosthetic socket directly on the patient has the potential of being easier and quicker to manufacture but also incurring higher costs. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to compare the costs of manufacturing a transtibial prosthetic socket using either a MSS or a standard laminated socket (PC). STUDY DESIGN: Concurrent controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 20 patients at two orthopaedic facilities were followed with regards to the cost of manufacturing a prosthetic socket using either MSS or PC. Time aspects and material costs were considered in the cost analysis. Other factors studied include delivery time and number of visits. For the cost analysis, only direct costs pertaining to the prosthetic socket were considered. RESULTS: The total cost of MSS was found to be significantly higher (p < 0.01) compared to PC. However, the production and time cost was significantly lower. Delivery time to the patient was 1 day for MSS compared to 17 days for PC. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that the direct prosthetic cost of treating a patient using MSS is significantly higher than treating a patient using PC. However, the MSS prosthesis can be delivered significantly faster and with fewer visits. Further studies taking the full societal costs of MSS into account should therefore be performed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study shows that the direct prosthetic cost of treating a patient with Modular Socket System is significantly higher than treating a patient with plastercasting with standard laminated socket. However, the Modular Socket System prosthesis can be delivered significantly faster and with fewer visits.
BACKGROUND: Using the new modular socket system (MSS) to produce a prosthetic socket directly on the patient has the potential of being easier and quicker to manufacture but also incurring higher costs. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to compare the costs of manufacturing a transtibial prosthetic socket using either a MSS or a standard laminated socket (PC). STUDY DESIGN: Concurrent controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 20 patients at two orthopaedic facilities were followed with regards to the cost of manufacturing a prosthetic socket using either MSS or PC. Time aspects and material costs were considered in the cost analysis. Other factors studied include delivery time and number of visits. For the cost analysis, only direct costs pertaining to the prosthetic socket were considered. RESULTS: The total cost of MSS was found to be significantly higher (p < 0.01) compared to PC. However, the production and time cost was significantly lower. Delivery time to the patient was 1 day for MSS compared to 17 days for PC. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that the direct prosthetic cost of treating a patient using MSS is significantly higher than treating a patient using PC. However, the MSS prosthesis can be delivered significantly faster and with fewer visits. Further studies taking the full societal costs of MSS into account should therefore be performed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study shows that the direct prosthetic cost of treating a patient with Modular Socket System is significantly higher than treating a patient with plastercasting with standard laminated socket. However, the Modular Socket System prosthesis can be delivered significantly faster and with fewer visits.
Authors: M Jason Highsmith; Jason T Kahle; Amanda Lewandowski; Tyler D Klenow; John J Orriola; Rebecca M Miro; Owen T Hill; Sylvia Ursula Raschke; Michael S Orendurff; James T Highsmith; Bryce S Sutton Journal: Technol Innov Date: 2016-09-01