What are Estimated Reimbursements for Lower Extremity Prostheses Capable of Surgical and Nonsurgical Lengthening?

Department of Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, University of South Florida, 13220 Laurel Drive, MDF 5th Floor, MDC 6, Tampa, FL 33612, USA.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (Impact Factor: 2.77). 11/2011; 470(4):1194-203. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2186-2
Source: PubMed


Growing prostheses accommodate skeletally immature patients with bone tumors undergoing limb-preserving surgery. Early devices required surgical procedures for lengthening; recent devices lengthen without surgery. Expenses for newer expandable devices that lengthen without surgery are more than for their predecessors but overall reimbursement amounts are not known.
We sought to determine reimbursement amounts associated with lengthening of growing prostheses requiring surgical and nonsurgical lengthening.
We retrospectively reviewed 17 patients with growing prostheses requiring surgical expansion and eight patients with prostheses capable of nonsurgical expansion. Insurance documents were reviewed to determine the reimbursement for implantation, lengthening, and complications. Growth data were obtained from the literature.
Mean reimbursement amounts of surgical and nonsurgical lengthenings were $9950 and $272, respectively. Estimated reimbursements associated with implantation of a growing prosthesis varied depending on age, sex, and location. The largest difference was found for 4-year-old boys with distal femoral replacement where reimbursement for expansion to maturity for surgical and nonsurgical lengthening prostheses would be $379,000 and $208,000, respectively. For children requiring more than one surgical expansion, net reimbursements were lower when a noninvasive lengthening device was used. Annual per-prosthesis maintenance reimbursements to address complications for surgical and nonsurgical lengthening prostheses were $3386 and $1856, respectively.
This study showed that reimbursements for lengthening of growing endoprostheses capable of nonsurgical expansion may be less expensive in younger patients, particularly male patients undergoing distal femur replacement, than endoprostheses requiring surgical lengthening. Longer outcomes studies are required to see if reimbursements for complications differ between devices.
Level III, economic and decision analysis. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Available from: Eric R Henderson
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Endoprosthetic reconstruction after resection of a primary bone malignancy has become an established surgical modality that preserves the limb without compromising oncologic survival. Tumours arising from the proximal tibia and distal femur pose a unique set of challenges in the management of soft tissues and the restoration of limb length and joint kinetics. These issues are especially complex in the skeletally immature patient. The focus of this article is to review recent innovations in modern endoprosthetic design, with a focus on outcomes and treatment of surgical complications such as infection, aseptic loosening and extensor mechanism failure. We also review functional outcomes across various types of endoprosthetic designs.
    02/2014; DOI:10.1007/s40137-013-0042-x
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nowadays expandable endoprosthesis for growing children is an alternative to amputation in the course of surgical treatment. Modern non-invasive endoprosthesis gives the possibility of elongation without a surgical operation. In the paper, the results of research with the application of computer technique in geometrical modelling are presented, as well as the design and manufacture in processing the medical images and experimental studies during an initial estimation of a new expandable prosthesis construction for growing patients, which will lead to the preparation for production and implantation processes in Poland.
    Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering 06/2014; 34(4). DOI:10.1016/j.bbe.2014.05.005 · 0.65 Impact Factor