Cargando…
OASIS 2: Mobility differences with specific prosthetic feet across procedure codes
INTRODUCTION: Recently, many prosthetic devices were subjected to reimbursement coding review. Several prosthetic feet that were historically coded with the shock-attenuating function were recoded. The purpose of this analysis was to compare patient-reported functional mobility across a range of pro...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9208046/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35733615 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20556683221101623 |
_version_ | 1784729656791924736 |
---|---|
author | Miller, Taavy A Campbell, James H. England, Dwiesha L. Stevens, Phillip M. Wurdeman, Shane R. |
author_facet | Miller, Taavy A Campbell, James H. England, Dwiesha L. Stevens, Phillip M. Wurdeman, Shane R. |
author_sort | Miller, Taavy A |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Recently, many prosthetic devices were subjected to reimbursement coding review. Several prosthetic feet that were historically coded with the shock-attenuating function were recoded. The purpose of this analysis was to compare patient-reported functional mobility across a range of prosthetic feet using real-world clinical outcomes data. METHODS: A retrospective, observational review. A univariate generalized linear model was used to assess mobility across foot categories and between different prosthetic feet coded as L5987 or L5981. RESULTS: The final sample analyzed comprised of 526 individuals and four mutually exclusive categories of feet examined across a total of 10 different prosthetic foot types. The comparison of prosthetic foot categories were significantly different from the control category (i.e. historically L5981). CONCLUSIONS: The current data suggest the development of some prosthetic foot designs using advanced materials and geometric designs can provide comparable functional benefits as those with distinct shock absorbing mechanical features. Emphasizing functional performance over visible features may be a pathway towards higher performance for the end user. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9208046 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92080462022-06-21 OASIS 2: Mobility differences with specific prosthetic feet across procedure codes Miller, Taavy A Campbell, James H. England, Dwiesha L. Stevens, Phillip M. Wurdeman, Shane R. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng Original Manuscript INTRODUCTION: Recently, many prosthetic devices were subjected to reimbursement coding review. Several prosthetic feet that were historically coded with the shock-attenuating function were recoded. The purpose of this analysis was to compare patient-reported functional mobility across a range of prosthetic feet using real-world clinical outcomes data. METHODS: A retrospective, observational review. A univariate generalized linear model was used to assess mobility across foot categories and between different prosthetic feet coded as L5987 or L5981. RESULTS: The final sample analyzed comprised of 526 individuals and four mutually exclusive categories of feet examined across a total of 10 different prosthetic foot types. The comparison of prosthetic foot categories were significantly different from the control category (i.e. historically L5981). CONCLUSIONS: The current data suggest the development of some prosthetic foot designs using advanced materials and geometric designs can provide comparable functional benefits as those with distinct shock absorbing mechanical features. Emphasizing functional performance over visible features may be a pathway towards higher performance for the end user. SAGE Publications 2022-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9208046/ /pubmed/35733615 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20556683221101623 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Original Manuscript Miller, Taavy A Campbell, James H. England, Dwiesha L. Stevens, Phillip M. Wurdeman, Shane R. OASIS 2: Mobility differences with specific prosthetic feet across procedure codes |
title | OASIS 2: Mobility differences with specific prosthetic feet across procedure codes |
title_full | OASIS 2: Mobility differences with specific prosthetic feet across procedure codes |
title_fullStr | OASIS 2: Mobility differences with specific prosthetic feet across procedure codes |
title_full_unstemmed | OASIS 2: Mobility differences with specific prosthetic feet across procedure codes |
title_short | OASIS 2: Mobility differences with specific prosthetic feet across procedure codes |
title_sort | oasis 2: mobility differences with specific prosthetic feet across procedure codes |
topic | Original Manuscript |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9208046/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35733615 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/20556683221101623 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT millertaavya oasis2mobilitydifferenceswithspecificprostheticfeetacrossprocedurecodes AT campbelljamesh oasis2mobilitydifferenceswithspecificprostheticfeetacrossprocedurecodes AT englanddwieshal oasis2mobilitydifferenceswithspecificprostheticfeetacrossprocedurecodes AT stevensphillipm oasis2mobilitydifferenceswithspecificprostheticfeetacrossprocedurecodes AT wurdemanshaner oasis2mobilitydifferenceswithspecificprostheticfeetacrossprocedurecodes |