Matthew Boylan1, Kelly Suchman2, Jonathan Vigdorchik1, James Slover1, Joseph Bosco1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center, Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, New York. 2. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic and computer navigation technology is available to surgeons for use in hip and knee arthroplasties to increase the precision of component placement. However, they do add significant costs to these procedures, and the long-term clinical outcomes and value of technology assistance for joint replacement remain unclear. METHODS: We identified 321,522 patients in Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups 469 and 470 who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (N = 133,472) or primary total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (N = 188,050) between 2008 and 2015 in the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS). RESULTS: Among all total joint arthroplasties performed during this period, technology assistance was used in 5.1% of cases. Technology assistance was more common for knee (7.3%) than hip (1.9%) arthroplasty (P < .001). The proportion of cases using technology assistance grew each year, increasing from 2.8% (knee 4.3% and hip 0.5%) in 2008 to 8.6% (knee 11.6% and hip 5.2%) in 2015 (P trend <.001). The proportion of hospitals and surgeons using robotic assistance also increased during the study period, increasing from 16.2% of hospitals and 6.2% of surgeons in 2008 to 29.2% of hospitals and 17.1% of surgeons in 2015 (P trend <.001 for both). Technology was more likely to be used for patients with private insurance (5.9%) compared with Medicare (4.7%, P < .001) or Medicaid (2.2%, P < .001), and for patients at high-volume (6.9%, P < .001) or very high-volume (6.1%, P < .001) as compared with low-volume (2.7%) hospitals. CONCLUSION: Technology assistance has become increasingly used by orthopedic surgeons for hip and knee arthroplasties, however, adoption has not been uniform.
BACKGROUND: Robotic and computer navigation technology is available to surgeons for use in hip and knee arthroplasties to increase the precision of component placement. However, they do add significant costs to these procedures, and the long-term clinical outcomes and value of technology assistance for joint replacement remain unclear. METHODS: We identified 321,522 patients in Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups 469 and 470 who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (N = 133,472) or primary total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (N = 188,050) between 2008 and 2015 in the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS). RESULTS: Among all total joint arthroplasties performed during this period, technology assistance was used in 5.1% of cases. Technology assistance was more common for knee (7.3%) than hip (1.9%) arthroplasty (P < .001). The proportion of cases using technology assistance grew each year, increasing from 2.8% (knee 4.3% and hip 0.5%) in 2008 to 8.6% (knee 11.6% and hip 5.2%) in 2015 (P trend <.001). The proportion of hospitals and surgeons using robotic assistance also increased during the study period, increasing from 16.2% of hospitals and 6.2% of surgeons in 2008 to 29.2% of hospitals and 17.1% of surgeons in 2015 (P trend <.001 for both). Technology was more likely to be used for patients with private insurance (5.9%) compared with Medicare (4.7%, P < .001) or Medicaid (2.2%, P < .001), and for patients at high-volume (6.9%, P < .001) or very high-volume (6.1%, P < .001) as compared with low-volume (2.7%) hospitals. CONCLUSION: Technology assistance has become increasingly used by orthopedic surgeons for hip and knee arthroplasties, however, adoption has not been uniform.
Authors: Ryan J O'Rourke; Anthony J Milto; Brian P Kurcz; Steven L Scaife; D Gordon Allan; Youssef El Bitar Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Rami H Mahmoud; Juan J Lizardi; Jonathan Weinerman; Dennis J Vanden Berge; David S Constantinescu; Ramakanth Yakkanti Journal: J Orthop Date: 2022-08-12
Authors: Vaibhav Bagaria; Omkar S Sadigale; Prashant P Pawar; Ravi K Bashyal; Ajinkya Achalare; Murali Poduval Journal: Indian J Orthop Date: 2020-04-13 Impact factor: 1.251
Authors: Joseph K Antonios; Shane Korber; Lakshmanan Sivasundaram; Cory Mayfield; Hyunwoo Paco Kang; Daniel A Oakes; Nathanael D Heckmann Journal: Arthroplast Today Date: 2019-03-12
Authors: Peter P Hsiue; Clark J Chen; Cristina Villalpando; Danielle Ponzio; Amir Khoshbin; Alexandra I Stavrakis Journal: Arthroplast Today Date: 2020-03-09