Advertisement

Improving outcomes for amputees: The health-related quality of life and cost utility analysis of osseointegration prosthetics in transfemoral amputees

Published:October 14, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2022.10.007

      Highlights

      • Osseointegration prosthesis following transfemoral amputation is both cost effective and quality of life enhancing in appropriately selected patients.
      • Those who have performed poorly with traditional prosthetics, reflected by a EQ5D-HUV <0.60, should be offered osseointegration.
      • A strong argument exists for osseointegration to be commissioned within publicly funded healthcare systems as a second line prosthetic treatment in transfemoral amputees.

      Abstract

      Aim

      Some amputees are unable to adequately ambulate using conventional socket prosthetics, osseointegrated prosthetics have been described as an alternative strategy in this patient group. This paper aims to assess the effect of osseointegrated prosthetics, commonly simply referred to as osseointegration, in transfemoral amputees on health-related quality of life and cost analysis.

      Methods

      Two centre analysis of patients receiving transcutaneous femoral osseointegration using The Osseointegration Group of Australia Osseointegration Prosthetic Limb (OGAP-OPL) implant. Retrospective health utility and cost analysis of prospectively collected patient reported health outcome data. Osseointegration cost was compared with the yearly cost of a poorly fitting conventional prosthetic determining cost/Quality Adjusted Life Year.

      Results

      Eighty amputees received osseointegration. Mean age was 39 years (range 20–57) and 66% were male (n = 53). The majority of subjects underwent unilateral (n = 62, 77.5%) rather than bilateral surgery (n = 18, 22.5%). Trauma was the most common indication (n = 59, 74%). Maximum follow up was 10.5-years. Mean preoperative EQ5D HUV in pooled data was 0.64 (SEM 0.025) increasing to 0.73 (0.036) at 5-years and 0.78 (0.051) at 6 years with continued improvement up to 10.5-years. In subgroup analysis those with a starting EQ5D HUV <0.60 reached a cost/QALY of <£30,000 at 5-years postoperatively and show statistically significant improvement in EQ5D HUV.
      The UK military experience was wholly positive with a mean starting EQ5D HUV of 0.48 (0.017) with significant (p < 0.05) improvement in EQ5D HUV at each time point and a resultant reducing cost/QALY at each time point being £28,616.89 at 5 years.

      Conclusion

      There is both a quality of life and financial argument in favour of osseointegration in select patients with above transfemoral amputations. In those unable to mobilise satisfactorily with traditional prostheses and a pre-intervention score of <0.60, a consistent cost effectiveness and quality of life benefit can be seen. Such patients should be considered for osseointegration as these patients reap the maximum benefit and cost effectiveness of the device. This evidence lends strongly to the debate advocating the use of osseointegration through centrally funded resources, including the NHS.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Injury
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Van de Meent H.
        • Hopman M.T.
        • Frolke J.P.
        Walking ability and quality of life in subjects with transfemoral amputation: a comparison of osseointegration with socket prostheses.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013; 94: 2174-2178
        • Hoyt B.W.
        • Walsh S.A.
        • Forsberg J.A.
        Osseointegrated prostheses for the rehabilitation of amputees (OPRA): results and clinical perspective.
        Expert Rev Med Devices. 2020; 17: 17-25
        • Thesleff A.
        • Branemark R.
        • Hakansson B.
        • Ortiz-Catalan M.
        Biomechanical characterisation of bone-anchored implant systems for amputation limb prostheses: a systematic review.
        Ann Biomed Eng. 2018; 46: 377-391
        • Branemark R.
        • Branemark P.I.
        • Rydevik B.
        • Myers R.R.
        Osseointegration in skeletal reconstruction and rehabilitation: a review.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2001; 38: 175-181
        • Branemark R.
        • Berlin O.
        • Hagberg K.
        • Bergh P.
        • Gunterberg B.
        • Rydevik B.
        A novel osseointegrated percutaneous prosthetic system for the treatment of patients with transfemoral amputation: a prospective study of 51 patients.
        Bone Joint J. 2014; (96-B): 106-113
        • Tranberg R.
        • Zugner R.
        • Karrholm J.
        Improvements in hip- and pelvic motion for patients with osseointegrated trans-femoral prostheses.
        Gait Posture. 2011; 33: 165-168
        • Al Muderis M.
        • Lu W.
        • Tetsworth K.
        • Bosley B.
        • Li J.J
        Single-stage osseointegrated reconstruction and rehabilitation of lower limb amputees: the osseointegration group of australia accelerated protocol-2 (OGAAP-2) for a prospective cohort study.
        BMJ Open. 2017; 7e013508
        • Atallah R.
        • Leijendekkers R.A.
        • Hoogeboom T.J.
        • Frolke J.P.
        Complications of bone-anchored prostheses for individuals with an extremity amputation: a systematic review.
        PLoS ONE. 2018; 13e0201821
        • Hagberg K.
        • Haggstrom E.
        • Uden M.
        • Branemark R.
        Socket versus bone-anchored trans-femoral prostheses: hip range of motion and sitting comfort.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2005; 29: 153-163
        • Haggstrom E.E.
        • Hansson E.
        • Hagberg K.
        Comparison of prosthetic costs and service between osseointegrated and conventional suspended transfemoral prostheses.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2013; 37: 152-160
        • Alfieri K.A.
        • Forsberg J.A.
        • Potter B.K.
        Blast injuries and heterotopic ossification.
        Bone Joint Res. 2012; 1: 192-197
        • Sheean A.J.
        • Tintle S.M.
        • Rhee P.C.
        Soft tissue and wound management of blast injuries.
        Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2015; 8: 265-271
        • MOD
        MOD to fund trial of life-changing surgery for amputees.
        MOD, 2015 (Crown Copyright;)
        • McMenemy L.
        • Ramasamy A.
        • Sherman K.
        • Mistlin A.
        • Phillip R.
        • Evriviades D.
        • et al.
        Direct skeletal fixation in bilateral above knee amputees following blast: 2 year follow up results from the initial cohort of UK service personnel.
        Injury. 2020; 51: 735-743
      1. NICE. The guidelines manual. 2012.

        • Frossard L.A.
        • Merlo G.
        • Burkett B.
        • Quincey T.
        • Berg D.
        Cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prostheses using osseointegrated fixation: myth or reality?.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2018; 42: 318-327
        • Hansson E.
        • Hagberg K.
        • Cawson M.
        • Brodtkorb T.H.
        Patients with unilateral transfemoral amputation treated with a percutaneous osseointegrated prosthesis: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
        Bone Joint J. 2018; 100-B: 527-534
        • Rowen D.
        • Brazier J.
        • Roberts J.
        Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: how reliable is the relationship?.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009; 7: 27
        • Pospiech P.T.
        • Wendlandt R.
        • Aschoff H.H.
        • Ziegert S.
        • Schulz A.P.
        Quality of life of persons with transfemoral amputation: comparison of socket prostheses and osseointegrated prostheses.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2020; 309364620948649
        • Hagberg K.
        • Ghassemi Jahani S.A.
        • Kulbacka-Ortiz K.
        • Thomsen P.
        • Malchau H.
        • Reinholdt C
        A 15-year follow-up of transfemoral amputees with bone-anchored transcutaneous prostheses.
        Bone Joint J. 2020; 102-B: 55-63
        • Hagberg K.
        • Branemark R.
        • Gunterberg B.
        • Rydevik B.
        Osseointegrated trans-femoral amputation prostheses: prospective results of general and condition-specific quality of life in 18 patients at 2-year follow-up.
        Prosthet Orthot Int. 2008; 32: 29-41
        • von Kaeppler E.P.
        • Hetherington A.
        • Donnelley C.A.
        • Ali S.H.
        • Shirley C.
        • Challa S.T.
        • et al.
        Impact of prostheses on quality of life and functional status of transfemoral amputees in Tanzania.
        Afr J Disabil. 2021; 10: 839
        • Appleby J.
        • Devlin N.
        • Parkin D.
        NICE's cost effectiveness threshold.
        BMJ. 2007; 335: 358-359
        • Blough D.K.
        • Hubbard S.
        • McFarland L.V.
        • Smith D.G.
        • Gambel J.M.
        • Reiber G.E.
        Prosthetic cost projections for servicemembers with major limb loss from Vietnam and OIF/OEF.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2010; 47: 387-402
        • Ontario H.
        Osseointegrated prosthetic implants for people with lower-limb amputation: a health technology assessment.
        Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2019; 19: 1-126
        • MacKenzie E.J.
        • Bosse M.J.
        • Kellam J.F.
        • Pollak A.N.
        • Webb L.X.
        • Swiontkowski M.F.
        • et al.
        Early predictors of long-term work disability after major limb trauma.
        J Trauma. 2006; 61: 688-694
        • Modini M.
        • Joyce S.
        • Mykletun A.
        • Christensen H.
        • Bryant R.A.
        • Mitchell P.B.
        • et al.
        The mental health benefits of employment: results of a systematic meta-review.
        Australas Psychiatry. 2016; 24: 331-336
        • Ross C.E.
        • Mirowsky J.
        Does employment affect health?.
        J Health Soc Behav. 1995; 36: 230-243
        • Schuring M.
        • Mackenbach J.
        • Voorham T.
        • Burdorf A.
        The effect of re-employment on perceived health.
        J Epidemiol Community Health. 2011; 65: 639-644
        • Janssen M.F.
        • Szende A.
        • Cabases J.
        • Ramos-Goni J.M.
        • Vilagut G.
        • Konig H.H.
        Population norms for the EQ-5D-3L: a cross-country analysis of population surveys for 20 countries.
        Eur J Health Econ. 2019; 20: 205-216