Haggstrom Eva E, Hansson Elisabeth, Hagberg Kerstin
Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013 Apr;37(2):152-60. doi: 10.1177/0309364612454160. Epub 2012 Aug 20.
Nowadays, a transfemoral amputation prosthesis can be fitted to the skeleton using an osseointegrated implant, that is, without a socket. Treated patients have reported improvements in quality of life.
To investigate differences in prosthetic costs and service of osseointegrated prostheses compared to socket-suspended prostheses.
Retrospective cost analysis and survey.
Costs and noted visits during in mean ~10 years were taken from one prosthetic workshop and included 50 patients with unilateral transfemoral amputation (36 socket-suspended prostheses, 20 osseointegrated prostheses, 6 patients used both kinds of prostheses). A survey comprised 71 patients (69% males; mean age = 52.3 year; cause: 66% trauma, 23% tumour, 11% other).
Statistically significant fewer workshop visits were shown with osseointegrated prostheses compared to socket-suspended prostheses (cost analysis: 3.1 vs. 7.2 visits/year, survey: 3.4 vs. 9.2 visits/year). The mean total annual cost of new prostheses, services, repairs and adjustments was 14% lower for osseointegrated prostheses than socket-suspended prostheses (€3149 and €3672 respectively, p = 0.632). A subgroup analysis of recent produced prostheses revealed cost of material to account for 92.5% for osseointegrated prostheses and 70% for socket-suspended prostheses.
Despite significantly fewer visits for prosthetic service the annual mean costs for osseointegrated prostheses were comparable with socket-suspended prostheses. This study suggests it is due to more advanced prosthetic components being used with osseointegrated prostheses. Clinical relevance Patients with osseointegrated transfemoral prostheses require fewer visits for prosthetic service than patients with socket-suspended prostheses. The total prosthetic cost does not seem to differ between the two kinds of prostheses. However, more sophisticated prosthetic knees were more frequently used with osseointegrated prostheses, which could explain the lack of differences.
如今,经股骨截肢假体可通过骨整合植入物安装在骨骼上,即无需接受腔。接受治疗的患者报告生活质量有所改善。
研究与接受腔悬吊式假体相比,骨整合假体在假体成本和服务方面的差异。
回顾性成本分析和调查。
从一个假肢车间获取平均约10年期间的成本和记录的就诊情况,包括50名单侧经股骨截肢患者(36例接受腔悬吊式假体,20例骨整合假体,6例患者使用过两种假体)。一项调查包括71名患者(69%为男性;平均年龄=52.3岁;病因:66%为创伤,23%为肿瘤,11%为其他)。
与接受腔悬吊式假体相比,骨整合假体的车间就诊次数在统计学上显著减少(成本分析:每年3.1次对7.2次就诊,调查:每年3.4次对9.2次就诊)。骨整合假体的新假体、服务、维修和调整的年平均总成本比接受腔悬吊式假体低14%(分别为3149欧元和3672欧元,p = 0.632)。对近期生产的假体进行的亚组分析显示,骨整合假体的材料成本占92.5%,接受腔悬吊式假体占70%。
尽管骨整合假体的假体服务就诊次数显著减少,但其年平均成本与接受腔悬吊式假体相当。本研究表明,这是由于骨整合假体使用了更先进的假体组件。临床意义与接受腔悬吊式假体患者相比,骨整合经股骨假体患者的假体服务就诊次数更少。两种假体的总假体成本似乎没有差异。然而,骨整合假体更频繁地使用更复杂的假膝,这可以解释为何没有差异。