Abstract
Introduction
Complex primary total knee arthroplasties (TKA) are reported to be associated with excessive episode of care (EOC) costs as compared to noncomplex procedures. The impact of robotic assistance (rTKA) on economic outcome parameters in greater case complexity has not been described yet. The purpose of this study was to investigate economic outcome parameters in the 90-days postoperative EOC in robotic-assisted complex versus noncomplex procedures.
Materials and methods
This study is a retrospective, single-center review of 341 primary rTKAs performed between 2017 and 2020. Patient collective was stratified into complex (n = 218) and noncomplex TKA (n = 123) based on the presence of the following criteria: Obese BMI, coronal malalignment, flexion contracture > 10°, posttraumatic status, previous correction osteotomy, presence of hardware requiring removal during surgery, severe rheumatoid arthritis. Group comparison included surgery duration, length of stay (LOS), surgical site complications, readmissions, and revision procedures in the 90-days EOC following rTKA.
Results
The mean surgery duration was marginally longer in complex rTKA, but showed no significant difference (75.26 vs. 72.24 min, p = 0.258), neither did the mean LOS, which was 8 days in both groups (p = 0.605). No differences between complex and noncomplex procedures were observed regarding 90-days complication rates (7.34 vs. 4.07%, p = 0.227), readmission rates (3.67 vs. 3.25%, p = 0.841), and revision rates (2.29 vs. 0.81%, p = 0.318).
Conclusions
Robotic-assisted primary TKA reduces the surgical time, inpatient length of stay as well as 90-days complication and readmission rates of complex TKA to the level of noncomplex TKA. Greater case complexity does not seem to have a negative impact on economic outcome parameters when surgery is performed with robotic assistance.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most frequently performed elective surgical procedures and a further increase in the annual TKA-volume is predicted for the next decade [1]. Therefore, it is a major contributor to rapidly growing health care expenditures [1, 2]. The implementation of alternative payment models in health care was meant to reduce costs while maintaining a high quality of joint arthroplasty care [3]. In the bundled payment model, reimbursement is provided by a fixed payment for the financial coverage of the whole episode of care (EOC), which starts at admission and includes the 90-days postoperative episode [3, 4]. A major concern regarding this model is the lack of adequate financial adjustment for case complexity, which is associated with higher costs resulting in EOC net losses [5, 6]. In terms of arthroplasties, TKA is deemed complex if ideal component alignment is surgically challenging because of displaced anatomical landmarks and an altered mechanical axis, e.g., due to extra-articular deformities or severe coronal malalignment [7,8,9]. The investigation of economic outcome parameters in complex versus noncomplex manual TKA (mTKA) revealed significantly higher surgical and hospital costs as well as higher 90-days complication and readmission rates in the complex cohort [7]. Several studies identified these parameters as significant contributors to higher EOC costs; therefore, being crucial targets for potential cost reduction [10,11,12].
However, with the continuous improvement of surgical techniques and the implementation of new technologies, indications for primary TKA have expanded to include increasingly complex cases [13]. Evidence indicates that the robotic-assisted TKA (rTKA) increases the accuracy of bone cuts and precision of component positioning, as stated in a recent review by Elliott et al. [14,15,16]. Furthermore, the previous studies investigated rTKA in patients with severe coronal malalignment and extra-articular deformities concluding that rTKA is a feasible method to achieve correction to neutral alignment [17,18,19,20,21,22]. Robotic technology has been shown to have the potential to improve clinical outcomes [23], lower readmission rates and decrease EOC costs as compared to conventional TKA [24,25,26].
The impact of robotic assistance on economic outcome parameters in increasingly complex arthroplasties has not been described yet. With adverse cost-related outcomes being reported for complex conventional TKA, it is important to evaluate newer techniques that might have a beneficial impact on economic outcome parameters and may therefore have the potential to reduce EOC costs in greater case complexity.
The purpose of this study was to compare the surgery duration, length of stay (LOS) and the 90-days complication and readmission rates in the 90-days EOC between complex and noncomplex TKA using robotic assistance. We hypothesized that the implementation of rTKA would reduce the surgical time and the LOS in complex cases as well as the 90-days complication and readmission rates to the level of noncomplex TKA.
Materials and methods
In this retrospective, single-center study, a systematic review of the institutional database was conducted to identify all robotic-assisted primary TKAs between April 2017 and December 2020. A total of 341 rTKAs were performed in 331 patients using an image-based robotic system in 182 cases (MAKO®, Stryker Corporation, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) and an imageless robotic system in 159 cases (NAVIO®, Smith and Nephew, Memphis, TN, USA). All surgeries were performed under the care of two senior surgeons. The patient collective was stratified into two groups: complex TKA (n = 218) and noncomplex TKA (n = 123). Definition of complex procedures was based on the presence of the following criteria, modified from Ryan et al. [7]: Obese BMI (> 35.68), coronal malalignment (mPTA < 83° or > 91°, lDFA < 84° or > 90°), flexion contracture > 10°, posttraumatic status, previous ipsilateral correction osteotomy, presence of hardware requiring removal during surgery, severe rheumatoid arthritis (Table 1, Fig. 1).
Demographic and clinical data were retrieved from the digital medical records including sex, age (at the time of the index procedure), body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, comorbidities, previous surgeries, and preoperative range of motion. Intraoperative data included the robotic system, implant utilization, and surgery duration (skin incision to wound closure). Postoperative length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and direct postoperative complications were compared between the groups. The 90-days postoperative episode was examined regarding surgical site complications, readmission rates, and revision procedures. Arthroplasty-related postoperative complications were defined according to Iorio et al. [27] and classified as direct postoperative complications during acute inpatient stay and 90-days postoperative complications which occurred after discharge.
Pre- and postoperative radiographs included an anterior–posterior weight-bearing long leg view and a lateral view. Radiological measurements of the medial proximal tibial angle (mPTA), lateral distal femoral angle (lDFA) and overall limb alignment (OLA) were performed using Carestream PACS software (Carestream Health Deutschland GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany).
Normal distribution was tested using the Kolmogorov − Smirnov test. Group differences were calculated using Student’s t test for normally distributed data and Mann − Whitney U test for nonparametric data. Chi-square test was used to compare categorical data. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 27 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA).
The study was approved by the local ethics committee (#8808_BO_K_2019).
Results
Of the 341 patients being included in this study, 192 were female (56.30%). The mean age at the time of the index procedure was 66 years, and the mean ASA score was 2. Except from a higher BMI in the complex cohort (mean 30.77 vs. 28.77, p < 0.001), baseline characteristics revealed no significant group differences (Table 2).
Surgery duration
The mean surgery duration was marginally longer in the complex rTKA cohort (75.26 vs. 72.24 min, p = 0.258), but did not reach statistical significance.
Postoperative length of stay
The mean postoperative LOS was 8 days in both groups (7.76 vs. 7.60 days, p = 0.605) and showed no significant group difference in complex versus noncomplex rTKA patients. Patients were discharged to a type of rehabilitation facility in > 90% of all cases.
Complication and readmission rates in complex and noncomplex rTKA
There were no significant group differences regarding the complication and readmission rates. The comparison of direct postoperative complications during acute inpatient stay revealed no significant group differences. 15 direct postoperative complications were observed in the complex and 5 in the noncomplex cohort (6.88 vs. 4.07%, p = 0.288), requiring one revision surgery in the complex and two in the noncomplex group (p = 0.268).
The 90-days complication rate was 7.34% for complex rTKA and 4.07% for standard procedures (p = 0.227). There were 12 readmissions in the 90-days EOC, of which 8 occurred in the complex group. Neither 90-day readmission rates (3.67 vs. 3.25%, p = 0.841), nor 90-day revision rates (2.29 vs. 0.81%, p = 0.318) differed significantly between complex and noncomplex rTKA (Table 3). Detailed information on postoperative complications is provided in Table 4.
Discussion
The most important finding of the present study is that robotic-assisted TKA reduces the surgical time, postoperative length of stay as well as 90-days complication and readmission rates of complex procedures to the level of noncomplex procedures. These parameters were identified as major contributors to excessive EOC costs in previous studies and were found to be associated with greater case complexity [7, 11, 12]. As continuously rising health care costs constitute a significant economic burden, these economic outcome parameters depict crucial targets for potential cost reductions.
Surgery duration
In contrast to Ryan et al., who found significantly prolonged surgical times for complex versus noncomplex mTKA, our investigation of robotic-assisted TKA did not prove an association between case complexity and prolonged surgery duration [7]. Cost efficiency is a major concern of rTKA and surgery duration substantially determines intraoperative costs. A prior study by Savov et al. carried out at our institution demonstrated a learning curve of 11 cases for surgical time in rTKA [28]. After completing the learning curve, there was no significant difference for surgery duration between rTKA and conventional manual TKA, which is in line with evidence from other studies [29, 30]. Registration of anatomical landmarks and the reconstruction of the patient’s individual anatomy by implant positioning and joint balancing according to soft tissue tension were identified as critical, time-consuming steps [28, 30]. With regard to greater case complexity, these are crucial for the correction of complex deformities. After completing the learning curve, most time savings were achieved in these steps. Interestingly, in the present study, mean surgery duration for complex cases was remarkably shorter than surgical time published for complex mTKA. This might indicate that in greater case complexity rTKA is capable of even providing time savings and consecutive cost savings as OR minutes depict a substantial intraoperative cost factor [31, 32]. However, this remains hypothetical and requires further studies comparing rTKA and mTKA with regard to case complexity.
Postoperative length of stay
In this present study, mean postoperative LOS was equal for both complex and noncomplex procedures. Of note, mean LOS in this patient collective was longer than in the previous studies [2, 33], which is mainly attributable to the fact that in the German health care system patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty are regularly discharged to a rehabilitation facility. This is displayed by a discharge disposition to some type of rehabilitation facility in > 90% in this study collective. Thus, the time of discharge depends on the capacities of rehabilitation facilities and prolonged LOS is the consequence.
Our findings are in contrast to evidence from the previous studies reporting an association between greater case complexity and prolonged LOS [13, 34]. In this context, it is important to distinguish medical case complexity defined by comorbidity profiles from actual surgical case complexity. For medical case complexity, greater LOS and discharge to other destinations than home are consistently reported to be risk factors for all-cause readmissions following TKA [13, 35, 36]. This is attributable to the fact that these patients have worse overall health conditions, and are more likely to have complications or readmissions for any reasons [36]. With regard to surgical case complexity, discharge to rehabilitation facility might be even beneficial in terms of postoperative outcomes and complications, as d’Apuzzo et al. found a discharge to rehabilitation facilities to be protective against TKA-related readmissions [36].
90-day complication and readmission rates
In general, episode of care costs are mainly driven by higher complication and readmission rates in the 90-days postoperative episode, which often lead to costs exceeding the bundled payment [37]. Remarkably, in this present study greater case complexity was not associated with increased complication rates, readmission rates or subsequent revision procedures. The observed 90-days complication rate of 7.34% and 90-days readmission rate of 3.67% are lower than those reported by Ryan et al. for complex mTKA (15.6% and 7.8%, respectively) and in contrast to their data, this present study did not reveal significant differences as compared to noncomplex procedures [7]. Furthermore, the complication rate in this present study is consistent with evidence on 90-days surgery-related ED visits derived from register-based studies [38]. Our findings of comparable 90-days complication and readmission rates in complex and noncomplex procedures suggest that the implementation of robotic assistance in the context of increasing case complexity is capable of reducing complication rates and subsequent utilization of the healthcare resources to the level of standard procedures.
Robotic assistance in surgical case complexity
In the present study, TKA surgery was performed using two different robotic systems. With the imageless system, the virtual model of the knee is created by intraoperative mapping of the patient’s osseous structures [39]. Component size and implant positioning are determined intraoperatively and bone resection is performed using a handheld robotic burr [39]. With the image-based system, the surgical procedure is preplanned based on the preoperative imaging and bone resection is performed with a robotic-arm saw system [40, 41]. These differences indicate that there are slightly different intraoperative workflows. On the other hand, both systems are semi-active robotic systems and provide a broad range of common features. Both systems calculate a three-dimensional virtual model of the patient’s unique anatomy which enables the surgeon to achieve accurate bone resection limited within the confines of the surgical plan and optimal implant positioning with regard to the patient’s individual features [16, 40]. Both robotic systems provide real-time intraoperative data and thereby help the surgeon to achieve optimal results as component positioning, alignment, balanced flexion − extension gaps, proper soft tissue tension, and range of motion can be validated intraoperatively [16, 40, 41].
It is known that rTKA in general is capable of achieving higher precision of component positioning by intraoperative three-dimensional implant planning, which takes the patient’s individual anatomy into account [15]. This is also advantageous for the correction of complex deformities as the intraoperative plan provides an appropriate assessment of the deformity and allows for the best possible correction to neutral with exact bone cuts and minimal soft tissue releases [22]. Prior studies investigated rTKA in severe coronal deformities (post-traumatic) extra-articular deformities, flexion contracture and retained hardware [17, 18, 21, 22, 42]. The results are promising in terms of component positioning, gap balancing, restoration of the mechanical axis and improved function [9]. These factors are crucial for the long-term survivorship of TKA since postoperative malalignment can lead to early failure of TKA [9, 43].
Several studies focused on medical comorbidity profiles and patient characteristics associated with higher EOC costs [6, 13, 44,45,46,47], but there is a lack of data on actual surgical case complexity and subsequent arthroplasty-related complications. This is surprising, as the implementation of new technologies has the potential to optimize TKA surgery even in complex cases. The findings of this present study add on to the benefits of robotic assistance in complex cases, as not only surgical time and postoperative length of stay, but also the 90-day complication, readmission and revision rates for complex procedures were reduced to the same level as noncomplex rTKA procedures.
Concerns remain regarding the cost-effectiveness of rTKA, as increased costs are linked to the initial purchase and maintenance of the system [9, 48]. On the other hand, there is a potential for cost savings due to decreased downstream costs, e.g. due to reduced utilization of healthcare resources in the 90-day EOC. Several studies suggest that increased expenditures may be offset by improved postoperative outcomes, implant − survival rates and decreased revision rates [26, 31, 48, 49], but long-term outcomes remain to be demonstrated.
Limitations
This study has some limitations that are worth noting. First, the study population is limited since this is a single-center study based on our institutional database only. Owing to the retrospective design, no clinical data is presented. However, this is offset by the fact, that patients are encouraged to return to the outpatient clinic for a standardized 3-months follow-up visit, so information on the 90-days postoperative EOC is covered. Furthermore, in most cases TKA-related complications are readmitted to the primary institution.
In contrast to prior studies, we did not focus on the aspect of medical case complexity. However, we assessed the preoperative ASA score as a parameter for medically complex cases, which revealed no significant group difference.
Inpatient length of stay is not a standardized parameter as there are substantial differences in international health care systems due to different discharge protocols, which makes an absolute count of days difficult to compare to evidence from other countries. Owing to the retrospective study design, the exact time when a patient met discharge criteria could not be determined reliably, thus this limitation related to the German system could not be ruled out.
This study does not include explicit data on EOC costs. The aim of the present study was to give a first overview of the impact of robot-assisted technologies on economic outcome parameters in greater case complexity and provide general findings that are applicable to other institutions and countries. Because no significant group differences were observed for any of the outcome parameters, there is little reason to believe that the incorporation of cost data would alter these general findings. Nevertheless, further studies are necessary to corroborate the general findings of this study with cost data.
Conclusion
Despite these limitations, this study is to our best knowledge the first to investigate the impact of rTKA on economic outcome parameters in surgical case complexity. In conclusion, robotic-assisted TKA shows promising results for complex primary TKA in terms of surgery duration, postoperative length of stay, complication rates and subsequent utilization of healthcare resources in the 90-days EOC which are reduced to the level of noncomplex procedures. Therefore, the implementation of robotic assistance may be a promising approach to address these economic outcome parameters as crucial targets for potential cost savings in the 90-days EOC.
References
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):780–785. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00222
Cram P, Lu X, Kates SL, Singh JA, Li Y, Wolf BR (2012) Total knee arthroplasty volume, utilization, and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries, 1991–2010. JAMA 308(12):1227–1236. https://doi.org/10.1001/2012.jama.11153
Froimson MI, Rana A, White RE, Marshall A, Schutzer SF, Healy WL et al (2013) Bundled payments for care improvement initiative: the next evolution of payment formulations: AAHKS Bundled Payment Task Force. J Arthroplasty 28(8 Suppl):157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.012
No authors listed. Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) Initiative: General Information. https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/bundled-payments. Accessed 01 Mai 2021
Kamath AF, Courtney PM, Bozic KJ, Mehta S, Parsley BS, Froimson MI (2015) Bundled payment in total joint care: survey of AAHKS membership attitudes and experience with alternative payment models. J Arthroplasty 30(12):2045–2056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.05.036
Anis HK, Sodhi N, Vakharia RM, Scuderi GR, Malkani AL, Roche MW et al (2021) Cost analysis of medicare patients with varying complexities who underwent total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 34(3):298–302. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1695716
Ryan SP, Wu CJ, Plate JF, Bolognesi MP, Jiranek WA, Seyler TM (2021) A case complexity modifier is warranted for primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 36(1):37–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.07.066
Baldini A, Castellani L, Traverso F, Balatri A, Balato G, Franceschini V (2015) The difficult primary total knee arthroplasty: a review. Bone Joint J 97-B(10):30–39. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B10.36920
Ross KA, Wiznia DH, Long WJ, Schwarzkopf R (2021) The use of computer navigation and robotic technology in complex total knee arthroplasty. JBJS Rev 9(5):e20.00200. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.20.00200
Lygrisse KA, Zak S, Singh V, Hutzler LH, Schwarzkopf R, Rozell JC (2021) Emergency department observation versus readmission following total joint arthroplasty: Can we avoid the bundle buster? J Arthroplasty 36(3):833–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.09.021
Clair AJ, Evangelista PJ, Lajam CM, Slover JD, Bosco JA, Iorio R (2016) Cost analysis of total joint arthroplasty readmissions in a bundled payment care improvement initiative. J Arthroplasty 31(9):1862–1865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.02.029
Phillips JLH, Rondon AJ, Vannello C, Fillingham YA, Austin MS, Courtney PM (2019) How much does a readmission cost the bundle following primary hip and knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty 34(5):819–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.01.029
Anis HK, Sodhi N, Acuna AJ, Roth A, Vakharia R, Newman JM et al (2020) Does increasing patient complexity have an effect on medical outcomes and lengths-of-stay after total knee arthroplasty? J Knee Surg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1708850
Hampp EL, Chughtai M, Scholl LY, Sodhi N, Bhowmik-Stoker M, Jacofsky DJ et al (2019) Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrated greater accuracy and precision to plan compared with manual techniques. J Knee Surg 32(3):239–250. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1641729
Khlopas A, Sodhi N, Sultan AA, Chughtai M, Molloy RM, Mont MA (2018) Robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33(7):2002–2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.060
Elliott J, Shatrov J, Fritsch B, Parker D (2021) Robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty: an evolution in progress. A concise review of the available systems and the data supporting them. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 141(12):2099–2117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04134-1
Marchand RC, Sodhi N, Khlopas A, Sultan AA, Higuera CA, Stearns KL et al (2018) Coronal correction for severe deformity using robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 31(1):2–5. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1608840
Marchand RC, Khlopas A, Sodhi N, Condrey C, Piuzzi NS, Patel R et al (2018) Difficult cases in robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a case series. J Knee Surg 31(1):27–37. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1608839
Bottros J, Klika AK, Lee HH, Polousky J, Barsoum WK (2008) The use of navigation in total knee arthroplasty for patients with extra-articular deformity. J Arthroplasty 23(1):74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.01.021
Chou WY, Ko JY, Wang CJ, Wang FS, Wu RW, Wong T (2008) Navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty for a knee with malunion of the distal femur. J Arthroplasty 23(8):1239.e13-1239.e19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.11.001
Catani F, Digennaro V, Ensini A, Leardini A, Giannini S (2012) Navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty in knees with osteoarthritis due to extra-articular deformity. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(3):546–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1602-1
Klein GR, Austin MS, Smith EB, Hozack WJ (2006) Total knee arthroplasty using computer-assisted navigation in patients with deformities of the femur and tibia. J Arthroplasty 21(2):284–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2005.07.013
Shearman AD, Sephton BM, Wilson J, Nathwani DK (2021) Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with earlier discharge from physiotherapy and reduced length-of-stay compared to conventional navigated techniques. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 141(12):2147–2153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04207-1
Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS (2018) 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 100-B(7):930–937. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.100B7.BJJ-2017-1449.R1
Grosso MJ, Li WT, Hozack WJ, Sherman M, Parvizi J, Courtney PM (2020) Short-term outcomes are comparable between robotic-arm assisted and traditional total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1718603
Mont MA, Cool C, Gregory D, Coppolecchia A, Sodhi N, Jacofsky DJ (2021) Health care utilization and payer cost analysis of robotic arm assisted total knee arthroplasty at 30, 60, and 90 days. J Knee Surg 34(3):328–337. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1695741
Iorio R, Della Valle CJ, Healy WL, Berend KR, Cushner FD, Dalury DF et al (2014) Stratification of standardized TKA complications and adverse events: a brief communication. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(1):194–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2980-0
Savov P, Tuecking LR, Windhagen H, Ehmig J, Ettinger M (2021) Imageless robotic handpiece-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a learning curve analysis of surgical time and alignment accuracy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 141(12):2119–2128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04036-2
Sodhi N, Khlopas A, Piuzzi NS, Sultan AA, Marchand RC, Malkani AL et al (2018) The learning curve associated with robotic total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 31(1):17–21. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1608809
Kayani B, Konan S, Huq SS, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS (2019) Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty has a learning curve of seven cases for integration into the surgical workflow but no learning curve effect for accuracy of implant positioning. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27(4):1132–1141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5138-5
Cotter EJ, Wang J, Illgen RL (2020) Comparative cost analysis of robotic-assisted and jig-based manual primary total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1713895
Cerha O, Kirschner S, Gunther KP, Lutzner J (2009) Cost analysis for navigation in knee endoprosthetics. Orthopade 38(12):1235–1240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-009-1473-z
Oh C, Slover JD, Bosco JA, Iorio R, Gold HT (2018) Time trends in characteristics of patients undergoing primary total hip and knee arthroplasty in California, 2007–2010. J Arthroplasty 33(8):2376–2380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.079
Shah A, Memon M, Kay J, Wood TJ, Tushinski DM, Khanna V et al (2019) Preoperative patient factors affecting length of stay following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 34(9):2124-2165.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.04.048
Nichols CI, Vose JG (2016) Clinical outcomes and costs within 90 days of primary or revision total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 31(7):1400-1406.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.01.022
D’Apuzzo M, Westrich G, Hidaka C, Jung Pan T, Lyman S (2017) All-cause versus complication-specific readmission following total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(13):1093–1103. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.16.00874
Bosco JA, Karkenny AJ, Hutzler LH, Slover JD, Iorio R (2014) Cost burden of 30-day readmissions following Medicare total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 29(5):903–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.11.006
Kelly MP, Prentice HA, Wang W, Fasig BH, Sheth DS, Paxton EW (2018) Reasons for ninety-day emergency visits and readmissions after elective total joint arthroplasty: results from a US integrated healthcare system. J Arthroplasty 33(7):2075–2081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.010
Bautista M, Manrique J, Hozack WJ (2019) Robotics in total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 32(7):600–606. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1681053
Kayani B, Haddad FS (2019) Robotic total knee arthroplasty: clinical outcomes and directions for future research. Bone Joint Res 8(10):438–442. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.810.BJR-2019-0175
Roche M (2021) The MAKO robotic-arm knee arthroplasty system. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 141(12):2043–2047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04208-0
Matassi F, Cozzi Lepri A, Innocenti M, Zanna L, Civinini R, Innocenti M (2019) Total knee arthroplasty in patients with extra-articular deformity: restoration of mechanical alignment using accelerometer-based navigation system. J Arthroplasty 34(4):676–681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.12.042
Jones CW, Jerabek SA (2018) Current role of computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33(7):1989–1993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.027
Goltz DE, Ryan SP, Howell CB, Attarian D, Bolognesi MP, Seyler TM (2019) A weighted index of elixhauser comorbidities for predicting 90-day readmission after total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 34(5):857–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.01.044
Karas V, Kildow BJ, Baumgartner BT, Green CL, Attarian DE, Bolognesi MP et al (2018) Preoperative patient profile in total hip and knee arthroplasty: predictive of increased Medicare payments in a bundled payment model. J Arthroplasty 33(9):2728-2733.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.04.001
Ponnusamy KE, Marsh JD, Somerville LE, McCalden RW, Vasarhelyi EM (2018) Ninety-day costs, reoperations, and readmissions for primary total knee arthroplasty patients with varying body mass index levels. J Arthroplasty 33(7S):S157–S161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.019
Ryan SP, Goltz DE, Howell CB, Jiranek WA, Attarian DE, Bolognesi MP et al (2019) Predicting costs exceeding bundled payment targets for total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 34(3):412–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.11.012
Novak EJ, Silverstein MD, Bozic KJ (2007) The cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(11):2389–2397. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.01109
Gothesen O, Slover J, Havelin L, Askildsen JE, Malchau H, Furnes O (2013) An economic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of computer assisted knee replacement surgery in Norway. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 06(14):202–202. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-202
MacDessi SJ, Griffiths-Jones W, Harris IA, Bellemans J, Chen DB (2021) Coronal Plane Alignment of the Knee (CPAK) classification. Bone Joint J 103-B(2):329–337. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B2.BJJ-2020-1050.R1
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. No funding was received for conducting this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
RS carried out the data acquisition, statistical analysis, interpretation of data and wrote the first draft. PS contributed to data acquisition, methodology, revising the manuscript. LT contributed to data acquisition, methodology and drafting the manuscript. ME has made substantial contributions to conceptualization and methodology, interpretation of data, drafting and revising the manuscript. HW was involved in revising the manuscript and gave final approval of the version to be published. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
HW is educational consultant for Stryker. ME is educational consultant for Smith and Nephew.
Ethical review statement
Institutional review board approval was obtained from the local ethics committee of Hannover Medical School (#8808_BO_K_2019).
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Stauss, R., Savov, P., Tuecking, LR. et al. Robotic-assisted TKA reduces surgery duration, length of stay and 90-day complication rate of complex TKA to the level of noncomplex TKA. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143, 3423–3430 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04618-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04618-8