Robotic-arm–assisted Knee Arthroplasty Associated With Favorable In-hospital Metrics and Exponentially Rising Adoption Compared With Manual Knee Arthroplasty. Issue 24 (15th December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Emara, Ahmed K.; Zhou, Guangjin; Klika, Alison K.; Koroukian, Siran M.; Schiltz, Nicholas K.; Krebs, Viktor E.; Molloy, Robert M.; Piuzzi, Nicolas S.
• Is Part Of: Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Volume 29:Issue 24(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-12-15
• Subjects: Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Orthopedic surgery -- Periodicals; Joint Diseases -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Orthopedic surgery; Orthopedics; Periodicals; 616.7005
• DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-00146
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1067-151X

Abstract

Abstract : 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.