The cost and time effectiveness of osseointegration compared to the traditional socket prosthesis

Burkett, Brendan, Frossard, Laurent A., Berg, Debra, & Formosa, Danielle (2014) The cost and time effectiveness of osseointegration compared to the traditional socket prosthesis. In Research That Matters: Communicate Collaborate Celebrate, 2014 University Research Week, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, Australia, p. 27.

View at publisher (open access)

Abstract

Individuals with limb amputation fitted with conventional socket-suspended prostheses often experience socket related discomfort leading to a significant decrease in quality of life.[1-14] Most of these concerns can be overcome with osseointegration, a direct skeletal fixation method where the prosthetic componentry are directly attached to the fixation, resulting in the redundancy of the traditional socket system. There are two stages of osseointegration; Stage one, a titanium implant is inserted into the marrow space of residual limb bone and Stage two, a titanium extension is attached to the fixture. This surgical procedure is currently blooming worldwide, particularly within Queensland. Whilst providing improvements in quality of life, this new method also has potential to minimise the cost required for an amputee to ambulate during daily living. Thus, the aim of this project was to compare the differences in mean cost of services, cost of componentry and labour hours when using osseointegration compared to traditional socket-based prostheses. Data were extracted from Queensland Artificial Limb Services (QALS) database to determine cost of services, type of services and labour hours required to maintain a prosthetic limb. Five trans-femoral amputee male participants (age 46.4±10.1 yrs; height 175.4±16.3 cm; mass 83.8±14.0 kg; time since second stage 22.0± 8.1 mths) met inclusion criteria which was patient had to be more than 12 months post stage two osseointegration procedure. The socket and osseointegration prosthesis variables examined were the mean hours of labour, mean cost of services and mean cost of prosthetic componentry. Statistical analyses were conducted using an ANOVA. The results identified that there were only significant differences in the number of labour hours (p = 0.005) and cost of services (p = 0.021) when comparing the socket and osseointegration prosthetic type. These results identified that the cost of componentry were comparable between the two methods.

Impact and interest:

Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

Full-text downloads:

118 since deposited on 14 Jun 2015
75 in the past twelve months

Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.

ID Code: 84787
Item Type: Conference Paper
Refereed: No
Keywords: Osseointegration, Bone-anchored prosthesis, Cost-effectiveness, Implant
Subjects: Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > ENGINEERING (090000) > BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING (090300) > Biomechanical Engineering (090302)
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > ENGINEERING (090000) > BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING (090300) > Rehabilitation Engineering (090305)
Divisions: Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Health
Current > Institutes > Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Current > Schools > School of Exercise & Nutrition Sciences
Copyright Owner: Copyright 2014 [please consult the authors]
Deposited On: 14 Jun 2015 23:16
Last Modified: 20 Jun 2015 23:23

Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX

Repository Staff Only: item control page