Cost Analyses of Prosthetic Devices: A Systematic Review.

Autor:	Donnelley CA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Institute for Global Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA., Shirley C; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA., von Kaeppler EP; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Institute for Global Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA., Hetherington A; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA., Albright PD; Western Michigan University School of Medicine, Kalamazoo, MI., Morshed S; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Institute for Global Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA., Shearer DW; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Institute for Global Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Electronic address: david.shearer@ucsf.edu.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation [Arch Phys Med Rehabil] 2021 Jul; Vol. 102 (7), pp. 1404-1415.e2. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Mar 09.
DOI:	10.1016/j.apmr.2021.02.010
Abstrakt:	Objective: To synthesize extant literature on the cost-effectiveness of prosthetic interventions and explore applicability to low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings. Data Sources: A systematic literature review using subject headings including "prosthetics," "amputation," and "cost analysis" was performed with PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science search engines, yielding 1194 articles. An additional 22 articles were identified via backward citation searching for 1144 total after duplicate removal. The search was last run in May of 2019. Study Selection: Studies were included if they conducted an economic analysis of an upper or lower extremity prosthetic device. Studies were excluded if (1) full text was unavailable in English; (2) study was a systematic review or meta-analysis; or (3) study did not have a prosthetic comparison group. Using DistillerSR software, 2 authors independently conducted title and abstract screening. One author conducted full-text screening. The proportion of initially identified studies that met final inclusion criteria was 1% (12 of 1144). Data Extraction: Data were dually extracted by 2 authors and reviewed by 3 additional authors. Data Synthesis: All included studies (N=12) examined lower extremity amputations comparing advanced technology. No studies were conducted in LMICs. Comparable data between studies demonstrated (1) the cost-effectiveness of microprocessor- over nonmicroprocessor-controlled knees for transfemoral amputation in high-income settings; (2) equivocal findings regarding osseointegrated vs socket-suspended prostheses; and (3) increased cost for ICEX and modular socket systems over patellar tendon-bearing socket systems with no functional improvement. Conclusions: There are few prosthetic cost analyses in the literature. Additional analyses are needed to determine the direct and indirect costs associated with prosthetic acquisition, fitting, and maintenance; the costs of amputee rehabilitation; and long-term economic and quality-of-life benefits. Such studies may guide future prosthetic and rehabilitative care, especially in resource-austere settings where prosthetic needs are greatest. (Copyright © 2021 The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu