Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2022; 35(02): 176-184
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1713895
Original Article

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

Eric J. Cotter 
1   Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Jesse Wang
1   Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Richard L. Illgen
1   Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
› Author Affiliations Funding The project described was supported by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program, through the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), grant UL1TR002373. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

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.

Keywords

robotic-assisted - total knee arthroplasty - manual - cost analysis

Note

This work was performed at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.




Publication History

Received: 03 May 2020

Accepted: 25 May 2020

Article published online:
13 July 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K, Chan N, Lau E, Halpern M. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (07) 1487-1497
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (04) 780-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth NP. Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 (17) 1455-1460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cool CL, Jacofsky DJ, Seeger KA, Sodhi N, Mont MA. A 90-day episode-of-care cost analysis of robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Comp Eff Res 2019; 8 (05) 327-336
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Slover JD, Tosteson ANA, Bozic KJ, Rubash HE, Malchau H. Impact of hospital volume on the economic value of computer navigation for total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90 (07) 1492-1500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gunaratne R, Pratt DN, Banda J, Fick DP, Khan RJK, Robertson BW. Patient dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (12) 3854-3860
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Antonios JK, Korber S, Sivasundaram L. et al. Trends in computer navigation and robotic assistance for total knee arthroplasty in the United States: an analysis of patient and hospital factors. Arthroplast Today 2019; 5 (01) 88-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bae DK, Song SJ, Park MJ, Eoh JH, Song JH, Park CH. Twenty-year survival analysis in total knee arthroplasty by a single surgeon. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (07) 1297-1304.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ritter MA, Meneghini RM. Twenty-year survivorship of cementless anatomic graduated component total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (04) 507-513
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Vakharia RM, Sodhi N, Cohen-Levy WB, Vakharia AM, Mont MA, Roche MW. Comparison of patient demographics and utilization trends of robotic-assisted and non-robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2021; 34 (06) 621-627
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cool CL, Needham KA, Khlopas A, Mont MA. Revision analysis of robotic arm-assisted and manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (05) 926-931
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Clement ND, Deehan DJ, Patton JT. Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for patients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis is cost-effective: a markov decision analysis. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B (09) 1063-1070
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bukowski BR, Anderson P, Khlopas A, Chughtai M, Mont MA, Illgen II RL. Improved functional outcomes with robotic compared with manual total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2016; 29: 303-308
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with improved early functional recovery and reduced time to hospital discharge compared with conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B (07) 930-937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Marchand RC, Sodhi N, Khlopas A. et al. Patient satisfaction outcomes after robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a short-term evaluation. J Knee Surg 2017; 30 (09) 849-853
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 CDC. Calculating total daily dose of opioids for safer dosage. Accessed June 7, 2020 at: ww.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/prescriving/guideline.html
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ryan SP, Goltz DE, Howell CB, Attarian DE, Bolognesi MP, Seyler TM. Skilled nursing facilities after total knee arthroplasty: the time for selective partnerships is now!. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (12) 3612-3616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sodhi N, Khlopas A, Piuzzi NS. et al. The learning curve associated with robotic total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2018; 31 (01) 17-21
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mont MA, Cool C, Gregory D, Coppolecchia A, Sodhi N, Jacofsky DJ. Health care utilization and payer cost analysis of robotic arm assisted total knee arthroplasty at 30, 60, and 90 days. J Knee Surg 2021; 34 (03) 328-337
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Malkani AL, Roche MW, Kolisek FR. et al. Manipulation under anesthesia rates in technology-assisted versus conventional-instrumentation total knee arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2020; 36: 336-340
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Schwarzkopf R, Behery OA, Yu H, Suter LG, Li L, Horwitz LI. Patterns and costs of 90-day readmission for surgical and medical complications following total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (10) 2304-2307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bhimani SJ, Bhimani R, Smith A, Eccles C, Smith L, Malkani AL. Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrates decreased postoperative pain and opioid usage compared to conventional total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint Open 2020; 1 (02) 6-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Jones MR, Kramer ME, Beutler SS. et al. The association between potential opioid-related adverse drug events and outcomes in total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study. Adv Ther 2020; 37 (01) 200-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar