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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Miller, Taavy A, Campbell, James H., England, Dwiesha L., Stevens, Phillip M., Wurdeman, Shane R.
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