Cost Comparison of Socket-Suspended and Bone-Anchored Transfemoral Prostheses Toggle navigation myGriffith Staff portal Contact Us⌄ Future student enquiries 1800 677 728 Current student enquiries 1800 154 055 International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425 General enquiries 07 3735 7111 Online enquiries Staff phonebook Toggle navigation View Item Home Griffith Research Online Journal articles View Item Home Griffith Research Online Journal articles View Item JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it. Browse All of Griffith Research Online Communities & Collections Authors By Issue Date Titles This Collection Authors By Issue Date Titles Statistics Most Popular Items Statistics by Country Most Popular Authors Support Contact us FAQs Admin login Login Cost Comparison of Socket-Suspended and Bone-Anchored Transfemoral Prostheses Author(s) Frossard, L Berg, D Merlo, G Quincey, T Burkett, B Griffith University Author(s) Frossard, Laurent Year published 2017 Metadata Show full item record 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 ... View more >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. View less > Journal Title Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics Volume 29 Issue 4 DOI https://doi.org/10.1097/JPO.0000000000000142 Subject Clinical Sciences Publication URI http://hdl.handle.net/10072/406770 Collection Journal articles Show Statistical Information Footer Disclaimer Privacy policy Copyright matters CRICOS Provider - 00233E Tagline Gold Coast Logan Brisbane - Queensland, Australia First Peoples of Australia Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander
