OASIS 2: Mobility differences with specific prosthetic feet across procedure codes.

IF 2 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering Pub Date : 2022-06-18 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20556683221101623
Taavy A Miller, James H Campbell, Dwiesha L England, Phillip M Stevens, Shane R Wurdeman
{"title":"OASIS 2: Mobility differences with specific prosthetic feet across procedure codes.","authors":"Taavy A Miller,&nbsp;James H Campbell,&nbsp;Dwiesha L England,&nbsp;Phillip M Stevens,&nbsp;Shane R Wurdeman","doi":"10.1177/20556683221101623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":43319,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f1/13/10.1177_20556683221101623.PMC9208046.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20556683221101623","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
OASIS 2:跨程序代码的特定假肢脚的移动性差异。
导读:近年来,许多假体装置受到报销编码审查。几个假脚的历史编码与冲击衰减功能被重新编码。本分析的目的是利用真实世界的临床结果数据,比较患者报告的一系列假肢足的功能活动性。方法:回顾性观察性研究。单变量广义线性模型用于评估不同脚类别和不同假肢脚之间的活动性,编码为L5987或L5981。结果:分析的最终样本包括526个人和四个相互排斥的足类,检查了总共10种不同的假肢足类型。假肢足类别的比较与对照类别(即历史上的L5981)有显著差异。结论:目前的数据表明,一些采用先进材料和几何设计的假肢足设计可以提供与具有明显减震机械特性的假肢足相当的功能优势。强调功能性能而不是可见特性可能是最终用户获得更高性能的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
5.00%
发文量
37
期刊最新文献
Artificial intelligence approach for detecting and classifying abnormal behaviour in older adults using wearable sensors. Designing feelings into lower-limb prostheses - A kansei engineering approach to understand lower-limb prosthetic cosmeses. Public opinion on types of voice systems for older adults. Initial feasibility evaluation of the RISES system: An innovative and activity-based closed-loop framework for spinal cord injury rehabilitation and recovery. Inclusive rehabilitation and assistive technologies development: An exploration of considerations, principles, and stakeholder engagement.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1