Literature DB >> 29629586

Patients with unilateral transfemoral amputation treated with a percutaneous osseointegrated prosthesis: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

E Hansson1, K Hagberg2, M Cawson3, T H Brodtkorb4.   

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of treatment with an osseointegrated percutaneous (OI-) prosthesis and a socket-suspended (S-) prosthesis for patients with a transfemoral amputation. Patients and
Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate the medical costs and changes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) attributable to treatment of unilateral transfemoral amputation over a projected period of 20 years from a healthcare perspective. Data were collected alongside a prospective clinical study of 51 patients followed for two years.
Results: OI-prostheses had an incremental cost per QALY gained of €83 374 compared with S-prostheses. The clinical improvement seen with OI-prostheses was reflected in QALYs gained. Results were most sensitive to the utility value for both treatment arms. The impact of an annual decline in utility values of 1%, 2%, and 3%, for patients with S-prostheses resulted in a cost per QALY gained of €37 020, €24 662, and €18 952, respectively, over 20 years.
Conclusion: From a healthcare perspective, treatment with an OI-prosthesis results in improved quality of life at a relatively high cost compared with that for S-prosthesis. When patients treated with S-prostheses had a decline in quality of life over time, the cost per QALY gained by OI-prosthesis treatment was considerably reduced. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:527-34.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Artificial limb; Cost benefit analysis; Prostheses and implants; Transfemoral amputation

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29629586      PMCID: PMC6503759          DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B4.BJJ-2017-0968.R1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  36 in total

Review 1.  Health economics and orthopaedics.

Authors:  N Maniadakis; A Gray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2000-01

2.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 3.  Osseointegration in skeletal reconstruction and rehabilitation: a review.

Authors:  R Brånemark; P I Brånemark; B Rydevik; R R Myers
Journal:  J Rehabil Res Dev       Date:  2001 Mar-Apr

Review 4.  Transfemoral socket design and suspension options.

Authors:  S L Kapp
Journal:  Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 1.784

5.  Health-care costs associated with amputation or reconstruction of a limb-threatening injury.

Authors:  Ellen J MacKenzie; Alison Snow Jones; Michael J Bosse; Renan C Castillo; Andrew N Pollak; Lawrence X Webb; Marc F Swiontkowski; James F Kellam; Douglas G Smith; Roy W Sanders; Alan L Jones; Adam J Starr; Mark P McAndrew; Brendan M Patterson; Andrew R Burgess
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Socket versus bone-anchored trans-femoral prostheses: hip range of motion and sitting comfort.

Authors:  K Hagberg; E Häggström; M Uden; R Brånemark
Journal:  Prosthet Orthot Int       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.895

Review 7.  Return to work after lower limb amputation.

Authors:  Helena Burger; Crt Marincek
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil       Date:  2007-09-15       Impact factor: 3.033

8.  The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.

Authors:  J E Ware; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Complications following limb-threatening lower extremity trauma.

Authors:  Anthony M Harris; Peter L Althausen; James Kellam; Michael J Bosse; Renan Castillo
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.512

10.  Painful neuroma requiring surgical excision after lower limb amputation caused by landmine explosions.

Authors:  Ali Sehirlioglu; Cagatay Ozturk; Kamil Yazicioglu; Ilknur Tugcu; Bilge Yilmaz; Ahmet Salim Goktepe
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-10-17       Impact factor: 3.075

View more
  5 in total

1.  Osseointegrated Prosthetic Implants for People With Lower-Limb Amputation: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2019-12-12

2.  The future of the amputees with osseointegration: A systematic review of literature.

Authors:  Christopher Gerzina; Eric Potter; Amgad M Haleem; Sherif Dabash
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-05-31

3.  Health economic evaluation in orthotics and prosthetics: a systematic review protocol.

Authors:  Leigh Clarke; Michael Dillon; Alan Shiell
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2019-06-27

4.  Periprosthetic osseointegration fractures are infrequent and management is familiar.

Authors:  Jason S Hoellwarth; Kevin Tetsworth; John Kendrew; Norbert Venantius Kang; Oscar van Waes; Qutaiba Al-Maawi; Claudia Roberts; Munjed Al Muderis
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 5.082

5.  The cost-effectiveness of Cochlear implants in Swedish adults.

Authors:  Mutsa Gumbie; Emma Olin; Bonny Parkinson; Ross Bowman; Henry Cutler
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-04-08       Impact factor: 2.655

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.