Logo image
Back
Cost Comparison of Socket-Suspended and Bone-Anchored Transfemoral Prostheses
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Cost Comparison of Socket-Suspended and Bone-Anchored Transfemoral Prostheses

Laurent Frossard, Debra Berg, Gregory Merlo, Tanya Quincey and Brendan J Burkett
Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Vol.29(4), pp.150-160
2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JPO.0000000000000142
url
https://doi.org/10.1097/JPO.0000000000000142View
Published Version

Abstract

Introduction: This observational study compared historical costs for provision of socket prostheses with simulated costs for bone-anchored prostheses (BAPs). Materials and Methods: The costs of transfemoral socket prostheses and BAP were extracted from the Queensland Artificial Limb Service's regulatory documentation according to K-levels and estimated for low-cost, budget, and high-cost limb options. Total costs including labor and parts after 6-year funding cycles were cross-compared for each socket and BAP fitting option. Results: Labor and attachment costs were reduced by 18% and 79%, respectively, for all BAP options compared with any socket fitting. BAP was more economical by $18,200, $7,000, and $1,600 when fitted with low-cost, budget, and high-cost options, respectively, compared with sockets for K4. The low-cost limb was the only economical option compared with all sockets above K2. Other BAP options were uneconomical compared with socket fitting below K4. Discussion: Suppliers of conventional prosthetic components can strongly impact the overall costs. Interestingly, manufacturers of BAP could play a decisive role given the cost of specific parts (e.g., connectors, protective devices). Conclusions: The proposed approach for cost assessments could assist funding organizations worldwide working toward the development of fair and equitable financial assistance programs for individuals choosing BAP.

Details

Metrics

5 File views/ downloads
618 Record Views
Logo image