Abstract
Dear Dr Curran,
Re: Highsmith MJ, Kahle JT, Bongiorni DR, Sutton BS, Groer S and Kaufman KR. Safety, energy efficiency, and cost efficacy of the C-Leg for transfemoral amputees: A review of the literature. Prosthet Orthot Int 2010; 34(4):362–377
We have identified an error in Table III of the article referenced above. The error is limited to the “Reported Incremental Ratio” Row of Table III (Cost-Effectiveness) and one sentence from page 374, reporting the results from the Seelen et al. study. The reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the two studies (Gerzeli et al. (2009) and Seelen et al. (2009) should be preceded by a negative sign indicating the incremental cost from the societal perspective (including the costs of lost productivity) shows that the C-Leg saves healthcare resources for a positive QALY gain.
The current sentence on page 374 describing Table III states:
“The ratio of incremental cost to incremental utility in Seelen et al. is € 52864/QALY (US$ 74697/QALY) and €65398 (US$ 92407) for first-time prosthesis users and repeat and first-time users combined.”
However it should have read:
“The ratio of incremental cost to incremental utility in Seelen et al. is €52864/QALY (US$74697/QALY) and −€65398 (−US$92407) for first-time prosthesis users and repeat and first-time users combined.”
The results are correctly reflected in the discussion of the article on p. 374 which states:
“All of the studies reporting societal cost-effectiveness data found that C-Leg is the dominant prosthesis strategy providing lower societal cost and a positive QALY gain from C-Leg adoption.”
We thank you for the opportunity to clarify this for readers of Prosthetics and Orthotics International.
Sincerely,
M Jason Highsmith
Bryce S Sutton
Jason T Kahle
Shirley Groer
Dennis R Bongiorni
Kenton R Kaufman