Cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prosthesis: the Queensland experience

Individuals with limb amputation fitted with conventional socket-suspended prostheses often experience socket-related discomfort leading to a significant decrease in quality of life. Bone-anchored prostheses are increasingly acknowledged as viable alternative method of attachment of artificial limb. In this case, the prosthesis is attached directly to the residual skeleton through a percutaneous fixation. To date, a few osseointegration fixations are commercially available. Several devices are at different stages of development particularly in Europe and the US. [1-15] Clearly, surgical procedures are currently blooming worldwide. Indeed, Australia and Queensland, in particular, have one of the fastest growing populations. Previous studies involving either screw-type implants or press-fit fixations for bone-anchorage have focused on biomechanics aspects as well as the clinical benefits and safety of the procedure. In principle, bone-anchored prostheses should eliminate lifetime expenses associated with sockets and, consequently, potentially alleviate the financial burden of amputation for governmental organizations. Unfortunately, publications focusing on cost-effectiveness are sparse. In fact, only one study published by Haggstrom et al (2012), reported that “despite significantly fewer visits for prosthetic service the annual mean costs for osseointegrated prostheses were comparable with socket-suspended prostheses”. Consequently, governmental organizations such as Queensland Artificial Limb Services (QALS) are facing a number of challenges while adjusting financial assistance schemes that should be fair and equitable to their clients fitted with bone-anchored prostheses. Clearly, more scientific evidence extracted from governmental databases is needed to further consolidate the analyses of financial burden associated with both methods of attachment (i.e., conventional sockets prostheses, bone-anchored prostheses). The purpose of the presentation will be to share the current outcomes of a cost-analysis study lead by QALS. The specific objectives will be: • To outline methodological avenues to assess the cost-effectiveness of bone-anchored prostheses compared to conventional sockets prostheses, • To highlight the potential obstacles and limitations in cost-effectiveness analyses of bone-anchored prostheses, • To present cohort results of a cost-effectiveness (QALY vs cost) including the determination of fair Incremental cost-effectiveness Ratios (ICER) as well as cost-benefit analysis focusing on the comparing costs and key outcome indicators (e.g., QTFA, TUG, 6MWT, activities of daily living) over QALS funding cycles for both methods of attachment.