Abstract
Aims
Prior cost-effectiveness analyses on osseointegrated prosthesis for transfemoral unilateral amputees have analyzed outcomes in non-USA countries using generic quality of life instruments, which may not be appropriate when evaluating disease-specific quality of life. These prior analyses have also focused only on patients who had failed a socket-based prosthesis. The aim of the current study is to use a disease-specific quality of life instrument, which can more accurately reflect a patient’s quality of life with this condition in order to evaluate cost-effectiveness, examining both treatment-naïve and socket refractory patients.
Methods
Lifetime Markov models were developed evaluating active healthy middle-aged male amputees. Costs of the prostheses, associated complications, use/non-use, and annual costs of arthroplasty parts and service for both a socket and osseointegrated (OPRA) prosthesis were included. Effectiveness was evaluated using the questionnaire for persons with a transfemoral amputation (Q-TFA) until death. All costs and Q-TFA were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses on those cost variables which affected a change in treatment (OPRA to socket, or socket to OPRA) were evaluated to determine threshold values. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated.
Results
For treatment-naïve patients, the lifetime ICER for OPRA was $279/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). For treatment-refractory patients the ICER was $273/QALY. In sensitivity analysis, the variable thresholds that would affect a change in the course of treatment based on cost (from socket to OPRA), included the following for the treatment-naïve group: yearly replacement components for socket > $8,511; cost yearly replacement parts OPRA < $1,758; and for treatment-refractory group: yearly replacement component for socket of > $12,467.
Conclusion
The use of the OPRA prosthesis in physically active transfemoral amputees should be considered as a cost-effective alternative in both treatment-naïve and treatment-refractory socket prosthesis patients. Disease-specific quality of life assessments such as Q-TFA are more sensitive when evaluating cost-effectiveness.
Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):218–226.
Take home message
For active transfemoral amputees, the OPRA prosthesis should be the prosthesis of choice.
The OPRA prosthesis provides improved quality of life in these individuals at a mimimal increased cost compared to a socket prosthesis.
Introduction
The osseointegrated prosthesis for rehabilitation of amputees (OPRA, Integrum, Sweden) was FDA-approved in December 2020 under a pre-market approval (PMA) designation. The OPRA is indicated for use in transfemoral amputees (TFAs) due to trauma or cancer, or in those who are anticipated to have problems with a conventional socket prothesis. These indications include patients with recurrent skin infections or ulcerations, pain with socket use, restricted mobility, volume fluctuations in the stump, and socket retention problems due to excessive perspiration or a short residual limb.1-3
The OPRA is an implant system employing skeletal anchoring of the prosthesis along with a skin-penetrating device, and is typically implanted in a two-stage surgical process. Over the past four to five years, there have been several comparison studies that have examined costs only,4-6 quality of life (QoL),7-10 and the cost-effectiveness11,12 of an osseointegrated prosthesis compared to a traditional socket-suspended prosthesis. These analyses, however, have either been short-term (i.e. ≤ 20 years),6,8 incomplete in capturing costs,4 non-USA-specific,6-9,11,12 and non-disease-/condition-specific as it relates to the QoL.11,12 Additionally, prior cost-effectiveness assessments of OPRA versus a traditional socket have been undertaken only in amputees who were treatment-refractory to a socket prosthesis.11 Longer-term five- to 15-year outcome data have recently been published, which provide additional insights into the longevity, mechanical complications, and patient-reported outcomes using OPRA implants.13,14
The purpose of this cost-effectiveness analysis was to evaluate an OPRA versus a socket prosthesis in treatment-naïve (i.e. those amputees who have not had a prosthesis; the primary outcome) and treatment-refractory (those who have a problem with a socket prosthesis and switch to an OPRA; the secondary outcome) healthy, physically active, middle-aged unilateral TFA males in the USA.
Methods
A digital literature search was performed on 1 April 2022 to retrieve studies published from 2001 to the present, on both socket and OPRA-type transfemoral prostheses using search criteria focused on clinical, economic, and cost outcomes. The Supplementary Material shows the search criteria used. The variables and distributions identified in relevant studies were used in the modelling process.
Markov health state transition models (TreeAge Pro 2022) were built to represent two treatment options - comparing the OPRA and socket prosthesis for treatment-naïve and treatment-refractory patients. In treatment-naïve patients, amputees who were not able or unlikely to tolerate a socket were treated with the OPRA prosthesis. Health states in each model included: steady state (OPRA and socket); failure/intolerable (socket); implant surgery and recovery (OPRA); living with an uncomfortable prosthesis (socket); abandons prosthesis (socket), treatment of mechanical complications (OPRA and socket); and death. For treatment-refractory patients, all health states were the same except the patient was assumed to have already been treated with the socket prosthesis, transitioning from socket to OPRA as part of the treatment paradigm.
Patients were assumed to be physically active, middle-aged (aged 46 years) healthy males with a unilateral TFA. The model was run for 20, 30, and up to 42 years (based on insurance life expectancy).15 Direct costs for medical care were evaluated. For these costs, Medicare reimbursements for procedures and services related to implantation, complications, and follow-up were used. The model assumed manufacturer pricing for the prostheses, and associated costs for mechanical complications and replacement parts (Supplementary Tables i and ii).
For QoL assessments, the disease-specific instrument for persons with a transfemoral amputation (Q-TFA) global score16 associated with each health state was used from the literature.7,9,13,14,16,17 Each Q-TFA was aggregated over time into a single number that could be compared across different types of treatments representing the length and QoL, termed quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
Probabilities for health states and complications were derived from published studies representative of the type of patient who was entered into the Markov Model. Costs and QoL were discounted at 3% annually.18 Discounting reflects a decrease/loss in value that occurs over time when there is a delay in realizing a benefit (i.e. effectiveness outcome) or when costs are incurred over time.
Figure 1 (treatment-naïve) and Figure 2 (treatment-refractory) show each of the model’s structures. Supplementary Tables iii to vi show variables and distributions used in each model. As an example of how a patient would transition from one health state to the next, Figure 3 shows a Markov model health state transition diagram for a treatment-naïve socket prosthesis patient. Meanwhile, Figure 4 shows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagram of studies used in the Markov models. A summary of these papers can be found in Supplementary Table vii.
Fig. 1
Treatment-naïve model structure.
Fig. 2
Treatment-refractory model structure.
Fig. 3
Markov model health state transition diagram. OPRA, osseointegrated prosthesis for rehabilitation of amputees.
Statistical analysis
Base case analyses estimated the QALYs and costs for each intervention to identify additional costs per QALY gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; ICER). Analysis of uncertainty was undertaken via: one-way sensitivity (with literature supported variation) in order to determine which variables had an effect in changing a type of treatment based on costs; and probabilistic sensitivity (to capture uncertainty in all parameters simultaneously) using Monte Carlo sampling (10,000 times).
Fig. 4
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses diagram of studies used in Markov model.
Results
Base case estimates for both treatment-naïve and treatment-refractory models are shown in Table I (for 20, 30, and 42 years). The specific costs associated with the initial OPRA implant and socket prosthesis are found in Supplementary Tables i and ii.
Table I.
Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, in US$.
| Disease state | Timeframe (years) | Costs | QALYs | ICER |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment-naïve socket | 20 | $105,753 | 901 | |
| Treatment-naïve OPRA | 20 | $176,910 | 1,125 | $333 |
| Treatment-naïve socket | 30 | $138,199 | 1,175 | |
| Treatment-naïve OPRA | 30 | $224,583 | 1,470 | $293 |
| Treatment-naïve socket | 42 | $166,371 | 1,413 | |
| Treatment-naïve OPRA | 42 | $265,977 | 1,770 | $279 |
| Treatment-refractory socket | 20 | $77,533 | 785 | |
| Treatment-refractory OPRA | 20 | $176,910 | 1,125 | $292 |
| Treatment-refractory socket | 30 | $102,146 | 1,033 | |
| Treatment-refractory OPRA | 30 | $224,583 | 1,470 | $280 |
| Treatment-refractory socket | 42 | $123,518 | 1,250 | |
| Treatment-refractory OPRA | 42 | $265,977 | 1,770 | $273 |
-
ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; OPRA, osseointegrated prosthesis for rehabilitation of amputees; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year; QALYs, quality-adjusted life-years.
Table II shows the value of those variables in which the alternative type of treatment would be chosen upon their cost variation (for 42-year lifespan).
Table II.
One-way sensitivity analysis.
| Variable | Model | Value at which OPRA would be the preferred course of treatment based on cost savings | Costs used in Markov model |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yearly cost replacement parts and service socket prosthesis (Figure 5) | Treatment-naïve | > $8,511 | $3,850 |
| Yearly cost replacement parts and service OPRA (Figure 6) | Treatment-naïve | < $1,758 | $6,606 ± 1,764 |
| Yearly cost replacement parts and service socket (Figure 7) | Treatment-refractory | > $12,467 | $3,850 |
-
OPRA, osseointegrated prosthesis for rehabilitation of amputees.
Fig. 5
One-way sensitivity analysis yearly cost replacement parts and service socket – treatment-naïve. ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; WTP, willingness to pay.
Fig. 6
One-way sensitivity yearly costs replacement parts and service osseointegrated prosthesis for rehabilitation of amputees (OPRA) – treatment-naïve. ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; WTP, willingness to pay.
Fig. 7
One-way sensitivity yearly costs replacement parts and service socket – treatment-refractory. ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; WTP, willingness to pay.
Probabilistic sensitivity revealed that in the majority of cases (80% for treatment-refractory (Figure 8) and 63.7% for treatment-naïve (Figure 9)), OPRA resulted in improved effectiveness and increased cost versus the socket prosthesis, with ICERs of $279/QALYs for treatment-naïve and $273/QALYs for treatment-refractory patients.
Fig. 8
Incremental cost-effectiveness (ICE) scatter plot, treatment refractory. IC, incremental costs; IE, incremental effectiveness; WTP, willingness to pay.
Fig. 9
Incremental cost-effectiveness (ICE) scatter plot, treatment-naïve. IC, incremental costs; IE, incremental effectiveness; WTP, willingness to pay.
Discussion
Based on the ICER findings in both treatment-naïve and treatment-refractory patients, the ICER values of $273 to $279/QALY in using the OPRA prosthesis in the USA are within an accepted ICER threshold value of < $50,000/QALY.19,20
The OPRA system permits direct skeletal control of a prosthetic limb. It is currently the only device of its kind to date that has obtained FDA clearance. It has previously been used largely at Walter Reed National Military Medical Centre for service members who have sustained injuries,21 and is now offered at other USA medical centres. OPRA is most often used as a salvage therapy to improve function after exhausting conventional strategies. Interestingly, the finding that OPRA is most cost-effective when used in the treatment-naïve setting suggests that repetitive failure of socket prostheses should likely not be a prerequisite by third party payers for OPRA’s use.
Recent publications have added more informed outcomes and costs to the present analysis versus prior analyses.11 These include additional data captured prospectively over five and 15 years on mechanical complications/costs with OPRA and Q-TFA longer-term assessments.13,14 These studies found statistically significant improvements over baseline on global QoL (as measured by Q-TFA) and mechanical failures due to increased use of the OPRA prosthesis. These data were added to the present analysis and provided additional insights that prior cost-effectiveness studies do not.
Differences exist in the current analysis versus prior ones. First, prior analyses used a period of 20 years.11 Second, other analyses have used more generic QoL assessments (36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36)) and EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L),11,12,22 which have not been found to be as sensitive in capturing condition-specific differences.11 As stated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence,23 generic health instruments such as the EQ-5D may not be the most appropriate due to a lack of sensitivity to condition-specific maladies. In making a case for a generic health instrument being inappropriate, evidence should be provided that key dimensions of health are missing (lack of content validity). Additionally, evidence of an instrument’s poor performance on construct validity (lack of responsiveness to the instrument) should also be shown.
The EQ-5D and SF-36 do not measure the amount of prosthetic use, comfort of the prosthesis and improved function, especially over time (i.e. a lack of content validity).24 Furthermore, general population health instruments do not measure the amputee’s ability to use, and satisfaction with, the prosthesis – the most important aspects to an amputee.25 A 2011 systematic review of the literature on QoL in amputees stated that amputee-specific validated instruments on the QoL are needed, which capture the unique facets of daily living that amputees encounter. This would make QoL assessments more relevant, comprehensive, and useful to those making decisions on the use of prostheses.26
The Q-TFA is a validated health instrument for evaluating non-elderly healthy amputees using a prosthesis.10 The Q-TFA also addresses the issues of function/mobility (which is part of the overall global score). Due to its lack of sensitivity, the EQ-5D demonstrates no statistically significant difference in global health scores when comparing OPRA to socket, while the Q-TFA does.27 Further, the Short-Form six-dimension questionnaire (SF-6D, derived from the SF-36 for use in cost-effectiveness analysis) provides a single “general health index”, and has been noted not to be sensitive in capturing detailed differences with specific groups such as transfemoral amputees.11,28 For the above reasons, Q-TFA was chosen as the effectiveness outcome in the analysis. Table III shows assessments made with Q-TFA, EQ-5D, and SF-36 over time in the patient populations, and their statistical differences on QoL for osseointegrated and socket prosthesis.
Table III.
Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation, EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire, and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire assessment over time.
| Study | Study type | Comparisons | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hagberg et al, 200829 | Two-year follow-up on osseointegrated prosthesis | Q-TFA and SF-36 assessments at baseline and 2 years | Q-TFA global score significantly different at 2 years from baseline (p = 0.002). SF-36 general health score no different at 2 years from baseline (p = ns) |
| Brånemark, et al, 201417 | Follow-up on osseointegreated prosthesis for TFA at baseline and 2 years | Q-TFA and SF-36 assessments at baseline and 2 years | Q-TFA global score significantly different at 2 years from baseline (p < 0.001). SF-36 general health score no different at 2 years from baseline (p = ns) |
| Hagberg et al, 20148 | Two-year follow-up on osseointegrated prosthesis | Q-TFA and SF-36 assessments at baseline, and 1 and 2 years | Q-TFA global score significantly different from baseline at 1 and 2 years (p < 0.001). SF-36 global significantly different, albeit less sensitive than Q-TFA (p = 0.007). This SF-36 difference represented a minimal important difference which is the smallest difference considered of relevance to a patient. |
| Brånemark et al, 201913 | Follow-up on osseointegreated prosthesis for TFA at baseline, and 2 and 5 years | Q-TFA and SF-36 assessments at baseline, and 2 and 5 years | Q-TFA global score significantly different at 2 and 5 years from baseline (p < 0.0001). SF-36 general health score no different at 2 and 5 years from baseline (p = ns) |
| Pospeich et al, 20207 | Matched cohort (osseointegrated vs socket prosthesis) for TFA | Q-TFA and EQ-5D-3L assessments in osseointegrated vs socket prothesis amputees | Statistically signficant differences found between osseointegrated and socket prosthesis on Q-TFA global (p = 0.02); no statistical difference in EQ-5D-3L (p = 0.479) |
-
EQ-5D-3L, EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire; ns, not specified; OPRA, osseointegrated prosthesis for rehabilitation of amputees; Q-TFA, Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation.
Another difference versus prior analyses is that this analysis includes a QoL assessment for those amputees who abandoned their prosthesis (in the treatment-naïve group) on the assumption that they were not converted to the OPRA prosthesis. This lowered the QoL for socket prosthetic users relative to OPRA.11
The cost of healthcare in the USA differs considerably compared to other countries. In fact, USA healthcare costs are 50%12 to 100%30,31 higher here than in previously published cost-effectiveness analyses.11,12 These factored into the present ICER analysis and resulted in higher overall costs, but were countered by higher QALYs using the Q-TFA. The use of Q-TFA is most relevant to this population, i.e. non-elderly physically active patients, and focuses on mobility and prosthetic use.8 Thus, the cost per QALY findings in the present study were significantly less than in prior analyses,11 and well within costs/QALY considered to be of high value.32
Strengths of this analysis include being the first analysis to evaluate USA cost-effectiveness of TFA prostheses. It is also the first analysis to use a disease- or condition-specific QoL measure (Q-TFA). In addition, data analysis was used on a population of patients who would benefit from an OPRA prosthesis: healthy, active, middle-aged males. This analysis also included a health state of non-use of a prostheses due to intolerance (in the treatment-naïve analysis), which others did not. The non-socket prosthetic user health state should be included as it is a distinct possibility for a transfemoral amputee.10
These findings should also be evaluated in the context of the study’s limitations. Although it sought to identify costs and outcomes in the medical literature related to healthy high-intensity users (e.g. with minimal to no comorbidities), data used in this analysis (albeit small) may have included patients with comorbidities such as diabetes or vascular diseases, thereby confounding the Q-TFA assessments, complications, and costs. Another limitation is that societal (indirect) costs were not included in the analysis. Other analyses have stated that the use of an OPRA prosthesis would be even more cost-effective than a socket type due to the ability of a patient to return to work sooner, and work more efficiently, based on a higher level of function.11 Moreover, the model reflects usage in healthy active males. We would, however, expect similar costs per QALY in healthy active females. It was assumed that the representative patient entered into the Markov model had a normal life expectancy (42 additional years of life) based on statements from prior studies.14,33,34 However, this may not be the case. Thus, 20 and 30 years of additional life spans were evaluated. Lastly, it was assumed that there was no state of non-use in the OPRA prosthesis as in the socket prosthesis. This assumption was made due a lack of identified literature on this issue.
As in other analyses, the costs of an OPRA implant are higher than with a socket prosthesis. However, the Q-TFA global score was also considerably higher versus generic health instruments, which is consistent with the data found in the literature.8,13,17 In summary, the ICER of OPRA was found to be highly cost-effective for healthy, active, middle-aged TFA males.
References
1. FDA letter to Integrum AB . 2020 . https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pma.cfm ( date last accessed 18 December 2020 ). Google Scholar
2. No authors listed . OPRA instructions for use . US Food and Drug Administration . https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf8/H080004d.pdf ( date last accessed 5 March 2024 ). Google Scholar
3. Zaid MB , OʼDonnell RJ , Potter BK , Forsberg JA . Orthopaedic osseointegration: state of the art . J Am Acad Orthop Surg . 2019 ; 27 ( 22 ): e977 – e985 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
4. Haggstrom EE , Hansson E , Hagberg K . Comparison of prosthetic costs and service between osseointegrated and conventional suspended transfemoral prostheses . Prosthet Orthot Int . 2013 ; 37 ( 2 ): 152 – 160 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
5. Frossard L , Berg D , Merlo G , Quincey T , Burkett B . Cost comparison of socket-suspended and bone-anchored transfemoral prostheses . J Prosthet Orthot . 2017 ; 29 ( 4 ): 150 – 160 . Crossref Google Scholar
6. Frossard LA , 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 ( 3 ): 318 – 327 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
7. Pospiech PT , Wendlandt R , Aschoff H-H , Ziegert S , Schulz AP . Quality of life of persons with transfemoral amputation: comparison of socket prostheses and osseointegrated prostheses . Prosthet Orthot Int . 2021 ; 45 ( 1 ): 20 – 25 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
8. Hagberg K , Hansson E , Brånemark R . Outcome of percutaneous osseointegrated prostheses for patients with unilateral transfemoral amputation at two-year follow-up . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 2014 ; 95 ( 11 ): 2120 – 2127 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
9. Van de Meent H , Hopman MT , Frölke JP . Walking ability and quality of life in subjects with transfemoral amputation: a comparison of osseointegration with socket prostheses . Arch Phys Med Rehabil . 2013 ; 94 ( 11 ): 2174 – 2178 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
10. Balk EM , Gazula A , Markozannes G , et al. Lower Limb Prostheses: Measurement Instruments, Comparison of Component Effects by Subgroups, and Long-Term Outcomes. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 213 . Rockville, Maryland, USA : Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US) , 2018 . Crossref Google Scholar
11. Hansson E , Hagberg K , Cawson M , Brodtkorb TH . Patients with unilateral transfemoral amputation treated with a percutaneous osseointegrated prosthesis: a cost-effectiveness analysis . Bone Joint J . 2018 ; 100-B ( 4 ): 527 – 534 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
12. Ontario Health (Quality) . Osseointegrated prosthetic implants for people with lower-limb amputation: a health technology assessment . Ont Health Technol Assess Ser . 2019 ; 19 ( 7 ): 1 – 126 . PubMed Google Scholar
13. Brånemark RP , Hagberg K , Kulbacka-Ortiz K , Berlin Ö , Rydevik B . Osseointegrated percutaneous prosthetic system for the treatment of patients with transfemoral amputation: a prospective five-year follow-up of patient-reported outcomes and complications . J Am Acad Orthop Surg . 2019 ; 27 ( 16 ): e743 – e751 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
14. 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 ( 1 ): 55 – 63 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
15. No authors listed . Northwestern Mutual Life Expectancy Calculator . Northwestern Mutual . https://media.nmfn.com/tnetwork/lifespan/#0 ( date last accessed 20 April 2022 ). Google Scholar
16. Hagberg K , Branemark R , Hagg O . Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA): initial validity and reliability of a new outcome measure . J Rehabil Res Dev . 2004 ; 41 ( 5 ): 695 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
17. Brånemark 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 ( 1 ): 106 – 113 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
18. Sanders GD , Neumann PJ , Basu A , et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine . JAMA . 2016 ; 316 ( 10 ): 1093 – 1103 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
19. Neumann PJ , Cohen JT , Weinstein MC . Updating cost-effectiveness--the curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold . N Engl J Med . 2014 ; 371 ( 9 ): 796 – 797 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
20. Cameron D , Ubels J , Norström F . On what basis are medical cost-effectiveness thresholds set? Clashing opinions and an absence of data: a systematic review . Glob Health Action . 2018 ; 11 ( 1 ): 1447828 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
21. Hoyt BW , Walsh SA , Forsberg JA . Osseointegrated prostheses for the rehabilitation of amputees (OPRA): results and clinical perspective . Expert Rev Med Devices . 2020 ; 17 ( 1 ): 17 – 25 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
22. Pospiech PT , Wendlandt R , Aschoff H-H , Ziegert S , Schulz AP . Quality of life of persons with transfemoral amputation: comparison of socket prostheses and osseointegrated prostheses . Prosthet Orthot Int . 2021 ; 45 ( 1 ): 20 – 25 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
23. No authors listed . Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 . National Institute for Health and Care Excellence . April 4 , 2013 . https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword ( date last accessed 7 March 2024 ). Google Scholar
24. Larsson B , Johannesson A , Andersson IH , Atroshi I . The Locomotor Capabilities Index; validity and reliability of the Swedish version in adults with lower limb amputation . Health Qual Life Outcomes . 2009 ; 7 : 44 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
25. Miller R , Ambler GK , Ramirez J , et al. Patient reported outcome measures for major lower limb amputation causes by peripheral artery disease or diabetes. A systematic review . Eur Jrl Vasc Endovasc Surg . 2021 ; 61 ( 3 ): 491 – 501 . Crossref Google Scholar
26. Sinha R , Van Den Heuvel WJA . A systematic literature review of quality of life in lower limb amputees . Disabil Rehabil . 2011 ; 33 ( 11 ): 883 – 899 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
27. Pospiech PT , Wendlandt R , Aschoff H-H , Ziegert S , Schulz AP . Quality of life of persons with transfemoral amputation: Comparison of socket prostheses and osseointegrated prostheses . Prosthet Orthot Int . 2021 ; 45 ( 1 ): 20 – 25 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
28. Németh G . Health related quality of life outcome instruments . Eur Spine J . 2006 ; 15 Suppl 1 ( Suppl 1 ): S44 – 51 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
29. Hagberg K , Brånemark 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 ( 1 ): 29 – 41 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
30. No authors listed . Health spending . Canadian Institute for Health Information . https://www.cihi.ca/en/health-spending ( date last accessed 5 March 2024 ). Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
31. McGough M , Winger A , Rakshit S , Amin K . How has U.S. spending on healthcare changed over time? Peterson-KFF . https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/ ( date last accessed 7 March 2024 ). Google Scholar
32. Anderson JL , Heidenreich PA , Barnett PG , et al. ACC/AHA statement on cost/value methodology in clinical practice guidelines and performance measures . J Am Coll Cardiol . 2014 ; 63 ( 21 ): 2304 – 2322 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
33. Hoellwarth JS , Tetsworth K , Oomatia A , Akhtar MA , Xu H , Al Muderis M . Association between osseointegration of lower extremity amputation and mortality among adults . JAMA Netw Open . 2022 ; 5 ( 10 ): e2235074 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
34. Hagberg K , Brånemark R . Consequences of non-vascular trans-femoral amputation: a survey of quality of life, prosthetic use and problems . Prosthet Orthot Int . 2001 ; 25 ( 3 ): 186 – 194 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
Author contributions
J. D. Voigt: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft.
B. K. Potter: Writing – review & editing.
J. Souza: Writing – review & editing.
J. Forsberg: Writing – review & editing.
D. Melton: Writing – review & editing.
J. R. Hsu: Writing – review & editing.
B. Wilke: Writing – review & editing.
Funding statement
The authors disclose receipt of the following financial or material support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: J. Voigt is a reimbursement consultant for Integrum, the manufacturer of the OPRA prosthesis.
ICMJE COI statement
J. Voigt reports payment from Integrum for analysis and writing of this article. J. A. Forsberg reports an institutional grant from the US Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, institutional funding for two osseointegration clinical trials from the US Army, and institutional research support from Zimmer Biomet, consulting fees and payment for expert testimony from The Solsidan Group, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureuas, manuscript writing or educational events from the Canadian Orthopaedic Society and Japanese Orthopaedic Society, stock or stock options in Prognostix AB, and a US patent (10,952,774), all of which are unrelated to this study. D. H. Melton reports consulting fees from Paradigm Corp unrelated to this study, and sits on the External Advisory Panel of the Limb Loss Preservation Registry, funded by the National Institutes of Health/Department of Defence funded grant. B. K. Potter reports research funding from the US Navy BUMED, CDMRP, DHA, and the National Institutes of Health, unrelated to this study. J. M. Souza reports consulting fees from Checkpoint, Integrum, and Balmoral, and travel expenses from Integrum, Hanger, and Balmoral, all of which are unrelated to this study. B. Wilke reports research support from Avanos and Summit Medical, unrelated to this study.
Data sharing
The data that support the findings for this study are available to other researchers from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Ethical review statement
The authors adhered to the ethical duties as outlined in the Bone & Joint Open publication ethics statement found on the Bone & Joint Open website.
Open access funding
The open access fee for this article was self-funded.
Supplementary material
References for the inputs, costs, and outputs derived from the Markov models.
© 2024 Voigt et al. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attributions (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original author and source are credited.
