Literature DB >> 32659815

Comparative Cost Analysis of Robotic-Assisted and Jig-Based Manual Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Eric J Cotter1, Jesse Wang1, Richard L Illgen1.   

Abstract

Excellent durability with traditional jig-based manual total knee arthroplasty (mTKA) has been noted, but substantial rates of dissatisfaction remain. Robotic-assisted TKA (raTKA) was introduced to improve clinical outcomes, but associated costs have not been well studied. The purpose of our study is to compare 90-day episode-of-care (EOC) costs for mTKA and raTKA. A retrospective review of an institutional database from 4/2015 to 9/2017 identified consecutive mTKAs and raTKAs using a single implant system performed by one surgeon. The raTKA platform became available at our institution in October 2016. Prior to this date, all TKAs were performed with mTKA technique. After this date, all TKAs were performed using robotic-assistance without exception. Sequential cases were included for both mTKA and raTKA with no patients excluded. Clinical and financial data were obtained from medical and billing records. Ninety-day EOC costs were compared. Statistical analysis was performed by departmental statistician. One hundred and thirty nine mTKAs and 147 raTKAs were identified. No significant differences in patient characteristics were noted. Total intraoperative costs were higher ($10,295.17 vs. 9,998.78, respectively, p < 0.001) and inpatient costs were lower ($3,893.90 vs. 5,587.40, respectively, p < 0.001) comparing raTKA and mTKA. Length of stay (LOS) was reduced 25% (1.2 vs. 1.6 days, respectively, p < 0.0001) and prescribed opioids were reduced 57% (984.2 versus 2240.4 morphine milligram equivalents, respectively, p < 0.0001) comparing raTKA with mTKA. Ninety-day EOC costs were $2,090.70 lower for raTKA compared with mTKA ($15,629.94 vs. 17,720.64, respectively; p < 0.001). The higher intraoperative costs associated with raTKA were offset by greater savings in postoperative costs for the 90-day EOC compared with mTKA. Higher intraoperative costs were driven by the cost of the robot, maintenance fees, and robot-specific disposables. Cost savings with raTKA were primarily driven by reduced instrument pan reprocessing fees, shorter LOS, and reduced prescribed opioids compared with mTKA technique. raTKA demonstrated improved value compared with mTKA based on significantly lower average 90-day EOC costs and superior quality exemplified by reduced LOS, less postoperative opioid requirements, and reduced postdischarge resource utilization. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32659815     DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1713895

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Knee Surg        ISSN: 1538-8506            Impact factor:   2.757


  8 in total

Review 1.  [Market overview: Robotic-assisted arthroplasty : Current robotic systems, learning curve and cost analysis].

Authors:  Lars-René Tuecking; Max Ettinger; Henning Windhagen; Peter Savov
Journal:  Orthopadie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-08-09

2.  Robotic-assisted TKA reduces surgery duration, length of stay and 90-day complication rate of complex TKA to the level of noncomplex TKA.

Authors:  Ricarda Stauss; Peter Savov; Lars-René Tuecking; Henning Windhagen; Max Ettinger
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-10-14       Impact factor: 2.928

3.  Comparative Cost Analysis of Four Different Computer-Assisted Technologies to Implant a Total Knee Arthroplasty over Conventional Instrumentation.

Authors:  Bernhard Christen; Lars Tanner; Max Ettinger; Michel P Bonnin; Peter P Koch; Tilman Calliess
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-01-30

Review 4.  Clinical outcomes associated with robotic and computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty: a machine learning-augmented systematic review.

Authors:  Quinlan D Buchlak; Joe Clair; Nazanin Esmaili; Arshad Barmare; Siva Chandrasekaran
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2021-06-25

5.  Total Knee Arthroplasty Hospital Costs by Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: Robotic vs Conventional.

Authors:  Christopher J Fang; John C Mazzocco; Daniel C Sun; Jonathan M Shaker; Carl T Talmo; David A Mattingly; Eric L Smith
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2021-12-10

6.  Robotic-Arm Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty: Cost Savings Demonstrated at One Year.

Authors:  Kevin L Ong; Andréa Coppolecchia; Zhongming Chen; Heather N Watson; David Jacofsky; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2022-05-02

7.  Robotic-Arm Assisted Technology's Impact on Knee Arthroplasty and Associated Healthcare Costs.

Authors:  David J Kolessar; Daniel S Hayes; Jennifer L Harding; Ravi T Rudraraju; Jove H Graham
Journal:  J Health Econ Outcomes Res       Date:  2022-08-23

8.  Unsatisfactory accuracy of recent robotic assisting system ROSA for total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Caleb Shin; Chelsea Crovetti; Enshuo Huo; David Lionberger
Journal:  J Exp Orthop       Date:  2022-08-19
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.