Potter, Benjamin Kyle

AimsPrior 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.MethodsLifetime 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.ResultsFor 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.ConclusionThe 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.

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measure progression and quality of care. While legacy PROs such as the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) survey are well-validated, a lengthy PRO creates a time burden on patients, decreasing adherence. In recent years, PROs such as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function and Pain Interference surveys were developed as computer adaptive tests, reducing time to completion. Previous studies have examined correlation between legacy PROs and PROMIS; however, no studies have developed effective prediction models utilizing PROMIS to create an IKDC index. While the IKDC is the standard knee PRO, computer adaptive PROs offer numerous practical advantages. Purpose: To develop a nonlinear predictive model utilizing PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference to estimate IKDC survey scores and examine algorithm sensitivity and validity. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The MOTION (Military Orthopaedics Tracking Injuries and Outcomes Network) database is a prospectively collected repository of PROs and intraoperative variables. Patients undergoing knee surgery completed the IKDC and PROMIS surveys at varying time points. Nonlinear multivariable predictive models using Gaussian and beta distributions were created to establish an IKDC index score, which was then validated using leave-one-out techniques and minimal clinically important difference analysis. Results: A total of 1011 patients completed the IKDC and PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference, providing 1618 complete observations. The algorithms for the Gaussian and beta distribution were validated to predict the IKDC (Pearson = 0.84-0.86; R 2 = 0.71-0.74; root mean square error = 9.3-10.0). Conclusion: The publicly available predictive models can approximate the IKDC score. The results can be used to compare PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference against historical IKDC scores by creating an IKDC index score. Serial use of the IKDC index allows for a lower minimal clinically important difference than the conventional IKDC. PROMIS can be substituted to reduce patient burden, increase completion rates, and produce orthopaedic-specific survey analogs.

Abstract Introduction Musculoskeletal injuries are an endemic amongst U.S. Military Service Members and significantly strain the Department of Defense’s Military Health System. The Military Health System aims to provide Service Members, military retirees, and their families the right care at the right time. The Military Orthopedics Tracking Injuries and Outcomes Network (MOTION) captures the data that can optimize musculoskeletal care within the Military Health System. This report provides MOTION structural framework and highlights how it can be used to optimize musculoskeletal care. Materials and Methods MOTION established an internet-based data capture system, the MOTION Musculoskeletal Data Portal. All adult Military Health System patients who undergo orthopedic surgery are eligible for entry into the database. All data are collected as routine standard of care, with patients and orthopedic surgeons inputting validated global and condition-specific patient reported outcomes and operative case data, respectively. Patients have the option to consent to allow their standard of care data to be utilized within an institutional review board approved observational research study. MOTION data can be merged with other existing data systems (e.g., electronic medical record) to develop a comprehensive dataset of relevant information. In pursuit of enhancing musculoskeletal injury patient outcomes MOTION aims to: (1) identify factors which predict favorable outcomes; (2) develop models which inform the surgeon and military commanders if patients are behind, on, or ahead of schedule for their targeted return-to-duty/activity; and (3) develop predictive models to better inform patients and surgeons of the likelihood of a positive outcome for various treatment options to enhance patient counseling and expectation management. Results This is a protocol article describing the intent and methodology for MOTION; thus, to date, there are no results to report. Conclusions MOTION was established to capture the data that are necessary to improve military medical readiness and optimize medical resource utilization through the systematic evaluation of short- and long-term musculoskeletal injury patient outcomes. The systematic enhancement of musculoskeletal injury care through data analyses aligns with the National Defense Authorization Act (2017) and Defense Health Agency’s Quadruple Aim, which emphasizes optimizing healthcare delivery and Service Member medical readiness. This transformative approach to musculoskeletal care can be applied across disciplines within the Military Health System.