Applying Health Utility Outcome Measures and Quality-Adjusted Life-Years to Compare Hand Allotransplantation and Myoelectric Prostheses for Upper Extremity Amputations.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: An amputation of the upper extremity not only is devastating for the patient's physical, emotional, and social well-being but also constitutes a financial stress for both the patient and the health care system. The objective of this study was to determine the utility and quality-adjusted life-years of hand allotransplantation versus myoelectric prostheses and to compare these measures in patients afflicted with unilateral versus bilateral amputations. METHODS: A survey was administered on bilateral amputees, unilateral amputees, replantation patients, and healthy controls. Patient demographics, functional patient-reported outcomes, quality-of-life questionnaires, and utility outcome measures were calculated for four different scenarios hand transplantation and myoelectric prostheses with or without complications. RESULTS: Five bilateral amputees, 12 unilateral amputees, nine replantation patients, and 45 healthy controls completed the survey. The highest quality-adjusted life-years were obtained in the replantation patient group for the scenario of myoelectric prosthesis without complications (mean, 34.8 years). Altogether, there was no statistically significant difference between hand transplantation and myoelectric prostheses (p = 0.36). On subgroup analysis, unilateral amputees reported significantly higher quality-adjusted life-years for myoelectric prostheses rather than hand transplantation (6.4; p = 0.0015), whereas bilateral amputees did not demonstrate a significant difference (-2.4; p = 0.299). CONCLUSIONS: Utility and quality-adjusted life-years do not differ significantly between hand transplantation and myoelectric prostheses, except in unilateral amputees with myoelectric prostheses, who had higher quality-of-life scores. Based on trends from this pilot study, myoelectric prostheses may be considered for unilateral amputees, whereas no superiority can be demonstrated between both treatments in bilateral amputees. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic, III.