Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 11, 2026
Engineering Platform and Experimental Protocol for Design and Evaluation of a Neurally-controlled Powered Transfemoral Prosthesis
Published on: July 22, 2014
Health economic evaluation of microprocessor and non-microprocessor controlled prosthetic knees
C E Bosman1, C K van der Sluis1, A H Vrieling1
1Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Background:
Use of a microprocessor-controlled knee (MPK) compared to a non-microprocessor-controlled knee (NMPK) can lead to improved walking ability, confidence and satisfaction. However, the MPK is more expensive than the NMPK and it is unknown whether the higher costs outweigh the potential benefits.
Objective:
To evaluate the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness of MPKs and NMPKs from a societal perspective in the Netherlands.
Methodology:
Participants completed the Dutch version of the EuroQol - five dimensions - five levels (EQ-5D-5L) to assess health-related quality of life, three subscales (ambulation, utility and well-being) of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) to assess prosthesis-related quality of life and a cost-questionnaire from societal perspective. Incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated and the ICUR was compared with the Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold. Bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty, and multiple imputation was applied to account for missing values.
Findings:
In total, 111 participants were included (37 female, 73 male, 1 unknown; 71 transfemoral, 39 knee disarticulation, 1 unknown; age 64 ± 13 years; 49 NMPK users, 62 MPK users). The cost-utility analysis demonstrated that the MPK yielded an increase of 0.032 quality adjusted life years (QALY) but at considerably higher costs. The mean cost difference was € 14,626, resulting in a mean ICUR of € 457,063 per QALY gained. The cost difference was mainly driven by acquisition costs but was partially compensated by lower costs of work absence, health care consumption and household care.
Conclusion:
The cost-effectiveness analyses demonstrated that the MPK is likely to provide benefits in term of prosthesis-specific quality of life, but at higher costs. However, short-term (6 months) improvement in health-related quality of life was too small to result in substantial QALY gain to offset the higher costs of the MPK and result in an incremental cost-utility ratio below the generally accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.
