Daniel Steffens1,2, Sascha Karunaratne3,4, Kate McBride3,4,5, Sanjeev Gupta6, Mark Horsley6, Brett Fritsch6. 1. Surgical Outcomes Resource Centre (SouRCe), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Level 9, Building 89, Missenden Road, Camperdown, Sydney, NSW, 2050, Australia. Daniel.Steffens@health.nsw.gov.au. 2. Faculty of Medicine and Health, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Daniel.Steffens@health.nsw.gov.au. 3. Surgical Outcomes Resource Centre (SouRCe), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Level 9, Building 89, Missenden Road, Camperdown, Sydney, NSW, 2050, Australia. 4. Faculty of Medicine and Health, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 5. RPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH), Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may improve the precision of bone preparation and component alignment when compared to the conventional surgical approach; however, the detailed cost analysis of robotic-assisted TKA is lacking. This study aims to compare in-hospital costs between robotic-assisted and computer-navigated TKA. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary TKA at a public hospital in Sydney between October 2018 and June 2019 were included. Patient demographics, surgical outcomes and in-hospital cost variables including, staff, critical care, emergency department, diagnostic, prosthesis, operating room, ward and other related costs until the discharge to the community were collected. Differences across in-hospital costs between robotic-assisted and computer-navigated TKA were compared using independent Student's t-tests. RESULTS: Of the 258 primary TKAs, 181 (70.2%) were computer-navigated and 77 (29.8%) robotic-assisted. Surgical time (p < 0.001) and operating time (p < 0.001) were both significantly shorter in computer-navigated TKA, while robotic-assisted TKA cases were more likely to be discharged directly home without extended in-patient rehabilitation (p = 0.014). When removing the capital costs of surgical equipment and maintenance, there was no difference in total in-hospital cost between computer-navigated ($19,512.3) and robotic-assisted TKA ($18,347.1; p = 0.179). When these capital costs were included, the mean in-hospital cost of robotic-assisted surgery was $21,507.6 compared to $19,659.7 for computer-navigated TKA (p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: The total in-hospital cost, during the implementation period of robotic-assisted TKA, is comparable with computer-navigated TKA. Robotic-assisted TKA was significantly more expensive when the upfront cost of the robotic system and maintenance costs were included. Longer term cost benefit of robotic-assisted TKA should be investigated in future studies.
PURPOSE: Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may improve the precision of bone preparation and component alignment when compared to the conventional surgical approach; however, the detailed cost analysis of robotic-assisted TKA is lacking. This study aims to compare in-hospital costs between robotic-assisted and computer-navigated TKA. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary TKA at a public hospital in Sydney between October 2018 and June 2019 were included. Patient demographics, surgical outcomes and in-hospital cost variables including, staff, critical care, emergency department, diagnostic, prosthesis, operating room, ward and other related costs until the discharge to the community were collected. Differences across in-hospital costs between robotic-assisted and computer-navigated TKA were compared using independent Student's t-tests. RESULTS: Of the 258 primary TKAs, 181 (70.2%) were computer-navigated and 77 (29.8%) robotic-assisted. Surgical time (p < 0.001) and operating time (p < 0.001) were both significantly shorter in computer-navigated TKA, while robotic-assisted TKA cases were more likely to be discharged directly home without extended in-patient rehabilitation (p = 0.014). When removing the capital costs of surgical equipment and maintenance, there was no difference in total in-hospital cost between computer-navigated ($19,512.3) and robotic-assisted TKA ($18,347.1; p = 0.179). When these capital costs were included, the mean in-hospital cost of robotic-assisted surgery was $21,507.6 compared to $19,659.7 for computer-navigated TKA (p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: The total in-hospital cost, during the implementation period of robotic-assisted TKA, is comparable with computer-navigated TKA. Robotic-assisted TKA was significantly more expensive when the upfront cost of the robotic system and maintenance costs were included. Longer term cost benefit of robotic-assisted TKA should be investigated in future studies.
Authors: Tyler Steven Watters; Richard C Mather; James A Browne; Keith R Berend; Adolph V Lombardi; Michael P Bolognesi Journal: J Surg Orthop Adv Date: 2011
Authors: James D Slover; Anna N A Tosteson; Kevin J Bozic; Harry E Rubash; Henrik Malchau Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Michael A Mont; Anton Khlopas; Morad Chughtai; Jared M Newman; Mathew Deren; Assem A Sultan Journal: Expert Rev Med Devices Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 3.166
Authors: Barbara L Conner-Spady; Eric Bohm; Lynda Loucks; Michael J Dunbar; Deborah A Marshall; Tom W Noseworthy Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Andrew J Price; Abtin Alvand; Anders Troelsen; Jeffrey N Katz; Gary Hooper; Alastair Gray; Andrew Carr; David Beard Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-11-03 Impact factor: 79.321