Robotic-arm-assisted Knee Arthroplasty Associated with Favorable In-hospital Metrics and Exponentially Rising Adoption Compared with Manual Knee Arthroplasty

Ahmed K. Emara, Guangjin Zhou, Alison K. Klika, Siran M. Koroukian, Nicholas K. Schiltz, Viktor E. Krebs, Robert M. Molloy, Nicolas S. Piuzzi

Producción científica: Contribución a una revistaArtículorevisión exhaustiva

33 Citas (Scopus)

Resumen

Background:Technology-assisted knee arthroplasty (KA), including robotic-arm-assisted knee arthroplasty (RA-KA) and computer-assisted (CA-KA) knee arthroplasty, was developed to improve surgical accuracy of implant positioning and alignment, which may influence implant stability, longevity, and functional outcomes. However, despite increased adoption over the past decade; its value is still to be determined.Questions/Purpose:This study aimed to compare robotic-arm (RA)-KA, CA-KA, and manual (M)-KA regarding (1) in-hospital metrics (length of stay [LOS], discharge disposition, in-hospital complications, and hospitalization-episode costs), (2) characterize annual utilization trends, and (3) future RA-KA and CA-KA utilization projections.Methods:National Inpatient Sample was queried for primary KAs (unicompartmental/total; 2008 to 2018). KAs were classified by modality (M-KA/CA-KA/RA-KA) using International Classification of Disease-9/10 codes. A propensity score-matched comparison of LOS, discharge disposition, in-hospital complications (implant-related mechanical or procedure-related nonmechanical complications), and costs was conducted. Trends and projected utilization rates were estimated.Results:After propensity score matched to their respective M-KA cohorts, RA-KA and CA-KA exhibited shorter LOS (RA-KA versus M-KA: 2.0 ± 1.4 days versus 2.5 ± 1.8 days; P < 0.001; CA-KA versus M-KA: 2.7 ± 1.4 days versus 2.9 ± 1.6 days; P < 0.001) and in-hospital implant-related mechanical complications (P < 0.05, each). RA-KA demonstrated lower nonhome discharge (P < 0.001) and in-hospital procedure-related nonmechanical complications (P = 0.005). RA-KA had lower in-hospital costs ($16,881 ± 7,085 versus $17,320 ± 12,820; P < 0.001), whereas CA-KA exhibited higher costs ($18,411 ± 7,783 versus $17,716 ± 8,451; P < 0.001). RA-KA utilization increased from <0.1% in 2008 to 4.3% in 2018. CA-KA utilization rose temporarily to 6.2% in 2014, then declined to pre-2010 levels in 2018 (4.5%). Projections indicate that RA-KA and CA-KA will represent 49.9% (95% confidence interval, 41.1 to 59.9) and 6.2% (95% confidence interval, 5.3% to 7.2%) of KAs by 2030.Discussion:RA-KA may provide value through improving in-hospital metrics and mitigating net costs. Similar advantages may not be reliably attainable with CA-RA. Because RA-KA is projected to reach half of all knee arthroplasties done in the United States by 2030, further cost analyses and long-term studies are warranted.

Idioma originalInglés
Páginas (desde-hasta)E1328-E1342
PublicaciónJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
Volumen29
N.º24
DOI
EstadoPublicada - 15 dic. 2021
Publicado de forma externa

Huella

Profundice en los temas de investigación de 'Robotic-arm-assisted Knee Arthroplasty Associated with Favorable In-hospital Metrics and Exponentially Rising Adoption Compared with Manual Knee Arthroplasty'. En conjunto forman una huella única.

Citar esto