Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Health economic value of CT scan based robotic assisted UKA: a systematic review of comparative studies

  • Knee Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this systematic review was to compare relevant health economic consequences of the CT-based robotic-arm-assisted system versus conventional Uni-compartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA).

Methods

In November 2020, A PRISMA systematic review was conducted using four databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane and Google Scholar) to identify all comparative studies reporting health economic assessments, such as robotic system costs, consumable costs, surgical revision rate, operating time, length of stay, and inpatient care costs.

Results

A total of nine comparative studies published between 2014 and 2020 were included in this systematic review. There was a moderate risk of bias as assessed using the ROBINS-I Tool. The CT-based robotic-arm-assisted system seemed to be associated with a lower risk of revision, decreased analgesia requirements during hospitalization, a shorter length of stay, and lower inpatient care costs compared to a conventional technique.

Conclusion

CT-based robotic-arm-assisted system for UKA appears to be an economically viable solution with a positive health economic impact as it tends to decrease revision rate compared to conventional UKA, improve post-operative rehabilitation and analgesia management. Post-operative inpatient care costs seem lower with the robotic-assisted system but depend on institutional case volume and differ among health systems. More studies are needed to confirm cost-effectiveness of CT-based robotic-arm-assisted system based on different health systems.

Level of evidence

Systematic review, Level IV

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ode Q, Gaillard R, Batailler C et al (2018) Fewer complications after UKA than TKA in patients over 85 years of age: a case-control study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 104:955–959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fabre-Aubrespy M, Ollivier M, Pesenti S et al (2016) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients older than 75 results in better clinical outcomes and similar survivorship compared to total knee arthroplasty. A matched controlled study. J Arthroplasty 31:2668–2671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Niinimäki T, Eskelinen A, Mäkelä K et al (2014) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty survivorship is lower than TKA survivorship: a 27-year Finnish registry study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:1496–1501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dyrhovden GS, Lygre SHL, Badawy M et al (2017) Have the causes of revision for total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasties changed during the past two decades? Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:1874–1886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 423:161–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Roche M (2014) Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: the MAKO experience. Clin Sports Med 33:123–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Plate JF, Mofidi A, Mannava S et al (2013) Achieving accurate ligament balancing using robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Adv Orthop 2013:837167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cobb J, Henckel J, Gomes P et al (2006) Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective, randomised controlled study of the acrobot system. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:188–197

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Batailler C, White N, Ranaldi FM et al (2019) Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:1232–1240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dretakis K, Igoumenou VG (2019) Outcomes of robotic-arm-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: minimum 3-year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Orthop Traumatol 29:1305–1311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kleeblad LJ, Borus TA, Coon TM et al (2018) Midterm survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-arm-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter study. J Arthroplasty 33:1719–1726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC et al (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jakobsen RB, Engebretsen L, Slauterbeck JR (2005) An analysis of the quality of cartilage repair studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:2232–2239

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Blyth MJG, Anthony I, Rowe P et al (2017) Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 6:631–639

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cool CL, Needham KA, Khlopas A, Mont MA (2019) Revision analysis of robotic arm-assisted and manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 34:926–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gilmour A, MacLean AD, Rowe PJ et al (2018) Robotic-arm-assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The 2-year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 33:S109–S115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hansen DC, Kusuma SK, Palmer RM, Harris KB (2014) Robotic guidance does not improve component position or short-term outcome in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 29:1784–1789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J et al (2019) An assessment of early functional rehabilitation and hospital discharge in conventional versus robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J 101B:24–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. MacCallum KP, Danoff JR, Geller JA (2016) Tibial baseplate positioning in robotic-assisted and conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 26:93–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. St Mart J-P, de Steiger RN, Cuthbert A, Donnelly W (2020) The three-year survivorship of robotically assisted versus non-robotically assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 102B:319–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Vakharia RM, Sodhi N, Cohen-Levy WB et al (2019) Comparison of patient demographics and utilization trends of robotic-assisted and non-robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 34(06):621–627

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wong J, Murtaugh T, Lakra A et al (2019) Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee replacement offers no early advantage over conventional unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:2303–2308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Pearle AD, van der List JP, Lee L et al (2017) Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up. Knee 24:419–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chawla H, van der List JP, Christ AB et al (2017) Annual revision rates of partial versus total knee arthroplasty: A comparative meta-analysis. Knee 24:179–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Klasan A, Carter M, Holland S, Young SW (2020) Low femoral component prominence negatively influences early revision rate in robotic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28:3906–3911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Batailler C, Bordes M, Lording T et al (2021) Improved sizing with image-based robotic-assisted system compared to image-free and conventional techniques in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 103B:610–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Gao Y et al (2015) The incidence of and risk factors for 30-day surgical site infections following primary and revision total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 30:47–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bhandari M, Smith J, Miller LE, Block JE (2012) Clinical and economic burden of revision knee arthroplasty. Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord 5:89–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (2001) The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register 1975–1997: an update with special emphasis on 41,223 knees operated on in 1988–1997. Acta Orthop Scand 72:503–513

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Siebert W, Mai S, Kober R, Heeckt PF (2002) Technique and first clinical results of robot-assisted total knee replacement. Knee 9:173–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nimmo SM, Foo ITH, Paterson HM (2017) Enhanced recovery after surgery: pain management. J Surg Oncol 116:583–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Clement ND, Bell A, Simpson P et al (2020) Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has a greater early functional outcome when compared to manual total knee arthroplasty for isolated medial compartment arthritis. Bone Joint Res 9:15–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Abdelfadeel W, Houston N, Star A et al (2020) CT planning studies for robotic total knee arthroplasty: what does it cost and does it require a formal radiologist reporting? Bone Joint J 102B:79–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Clement ND, Deehan DJ, Patton JT (2019) Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for patients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis is cost-effective: a markov decision analysis. Bone Joint J 101B:1063–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Moschetti WE, Konopka JF, Rubash HE, Genuario JW (2016) Can robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty be cost-effective? A Markov decision analysis. J Arthroplasty 31:759–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mahomed NN, Barrett J, Katz JN et al (2005) Epidemiology of total knee replacement in the United States medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg-Am 87:1222–1228

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Conditt MA, Conditt M, Coon T, Roche M et al (2013) Two year survivorship of robotically guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J Orthop Proc 95B(Suppl. 34):294

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FIFA Medical Center of Excellence, Orthopaedics Surgery and Sports Medicine Department, Croix-Rousse Hospital, 103 Grande rue de la Croix Rousse, 69004, Lyon, France

    Florent Bernard-de-Villeneuve, Kayahan Kayikci, Elliot Sappey-Marinier, Cécile Batailler, Elvire Servien & Sébastien Lustig

  2. Melbourne Orthopaedic Group, 33 The Avenue, Windsor, VIC, 3181, Australia

    Timothy Lording

  3. LIBM – EA 7424, Interuniversity Laboratory of Biology of Mobility, Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University, Lyon, France

    Elvire Servien

  4. Univ Lyon, Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University, IFSTTAR, LBMC UMR_T9406, F69622, Lyon, France

    Sébastien Lustig

Authors
  1. Florent Bernard-de-Villeneuve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kayahan Kayikci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elliot Sappey-Marinier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Timothy Lording
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cécile Batailler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elvire Servien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sébastien Lustig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

FBV, KK, ESM, TL and CB contributed to collect data and write the manuscript. ES and SL provided overall supervision of conducting this review. All authors reviewed and validated the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elliot Sappey-Marinier.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

S.L. is a consultant for Smith & Nephew, Stryker, Groupe Lepine, Medacta, receives institutional research support from Corin and Amplitude and is a board member for KSSTA, Maitrise Orthopédique and JBJS Am. The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bernard-de-Villeneuve, F., Kayikci, K., Sappey-Marinier, E. et al. Health economic value of CT scan based robotic assisted UKA: a systematic review of comparative studies. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 141, 2129–2138 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04066-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04066-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation