Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Robotic Arthroplasty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotics in Knee and Hip Arthroplasty

Abstract

Robotic-assisted technology was introduced into orthopedic procedures nearly two decades ago with the hope of reducing human error by improving mechanical alignment and joint kinematics. Four robotic systems are approved variably for use in the United States today as technologies for improving implant precision in total knee, total hip, unicompartmental knee, and patellofemoral arthroplasty procedures. Although evidence has strongly supported significant improvements in radiographic outcomes, the long-term clinical benefits and their associated economic implications are not well defined. Further complicating matters, institutions considering the implementation of robotic-assisted systems should anticipate other potential associated costs (e.g., capital investments, maintenance fees, disposable costs, and preoperative imaging requirements) specific to the different platforms. These costs can add a significant financial burden to the overall value of these procedures depending on the negotiated financial agreement, robotic life span, and institutional case volume. Therefore, in order to remain economically feasible, these costs must be offset by high case volumes and improvements in outcomes. Given the current performance-based healthcare environment, it is crucial that clinicians ensure that value-based goals are achieved.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bohn RE. From art to science in manufacturing: the evolution of technical knowledge. Found Trends Technol Informat Oper Manag. 2005;1(2):1–82.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jacofsky DJ, Allen M. Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplast. 2016;31(10):2353–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bargar WL. Robots in orthopaedic surgery: past, present, and future. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;463:31–6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17960673. Accessed 24 Apr 2017.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bell SW, Anthony I, Jones B, MacLean A, Rowe P, Blyth M. Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: data from a prospective, randomized controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(8):627–35. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00664.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Elson L, Dounchis J, Illgen R, et al. Precision of acetabular cup placement in robotic integrated total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int. 2015;25(6):531–6. https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000289.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Keene G, Simpson D, Kalairajah Y. Limb alignment in computer-assisted minimally-invasive unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88(1):44–8. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.88B1.16266.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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(4):780–5. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00222.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Riddle DL, Jiranek WA, McGlynn FJ. Yearly incidence of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplast. 2008;23(3):408–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.04.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Frost and Sullivan. Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) ROI model – comparative analysis of robot assisted versus conventional surgical technique; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mako Surgical Corp. Makoplasty Financial Summary; 2017. http://www.makosurgical.com/.

  11. Argenson J-NA, Blanc G, Aubaniac J-M, et al. Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a concise follow-up, at a mean of twenty years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(10):905–9. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00963.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. No Title. https://www.medicare.gov/coverage/diagnostic-tests.html. Published 2017. Accessed 1 March 2017.

  13. Robinson JC, Pozen A, Tseng S, et al. Variability in costs associated with total hip and knee replacement implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(18):1693–8. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.00355.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Banerjee S, Cherian JJ, Elmallah RK, Jauregui JJ, Pierce TP, Mont MA. Robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015;12(6):727–35. https://doi.org/10.1586/17434440.2015.1086264.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Song E-K, Seon J-K, Park S-J, Jung W, Park H-W, Lee GW. Simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty with robotic and conventional techniques: a prospective, randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(7):1069–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1400-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bellemans J, Vandenneucker H, Vanlauwe J. Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;464:111–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/BLO.0b013e318126c0c0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Song E-K, Seon J-K, Yim J-H, Netravali NA, Bargar WL. Robotic-assisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):118–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2407-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Suero EM, Plaskos C, Dixon PL, Pearle AD. Adjustable cutting blocks improve alignment and surgical time in computer-assisted total knee replacement. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(9):1736–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1752-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Koulalis D, O’Loughlin PF, Plaskos C, Kendoff D, Cross MB, Pearle AD. Sequential versus automated cutting guides in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2011;18(6):436–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2010.08.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bellemans J, Vandenneucker H, Vanlauwe J. Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;PAP:111–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/BLO.0b013e318126c0c0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Park SE, Lee CT. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional manual implantation of a primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2007;22(7):1054–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.05.036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bargar WL, Bauer A, Börner M. Primary and revision total hip replacement using the Robodoc system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;(354):82–91. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9755767. Accessed 24 Apr 2017.

  23. Domb BG, El Bitar YF, Sadik AY, Stake CE, Botser IB. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(1):329–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3253-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nawabi DH, Conditt MA, Ranawat AS, et al. Haptically guided robotic technology in total hip arthroplasty: a cadaveric investigation. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2013;227(3):302–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954411912468540.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Illgren R. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study. In: 43rd annual course: advances in arthroplasty. Cambridge, MA; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bukowski B, Abiola R, Illgen R. Outcomes after primary total hip manual compared with robotic assisted techniques. In: 44th annual advances in arthroplasty. Cambridge, MA; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pearle AD, O’Loughlin PF, Kendoff DO. Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2010;25(2):230–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.09.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lonner JH. Indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and rationale for robotic arm-assisted technology. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009;38(2 Suppl):3–6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19340375. Accessed 24 Apr 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sinha RK. Outcomes of robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009;38(2 Suppl):20–2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19340379. Accessed 29 Aug 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Citak M, Suero EM, Citak M, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is robotic technology more accurate than conventional technique? Knee. 2013;20(4):268–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2012.11.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lonner JH, John TK, Conditt MA. Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves Tibial component alignment: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:141–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0977-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jones B, et al. Accuracy of UKA implant positioning and early clinical outcomes in a RCT comparing robotic assisted and manual surgery. In: 13th annual CAOS meeting. Orlando, FL; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Conditt M, Coon T, Roche M, et al. Two year survivorship of robotically guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Orthop Proc. 2013;95-B(SUPP 34). http://www.bjjprocs.boneandjoint.org.uk/content/95-B/SUPP_34/294. Accessed 12 Apr 2017.

  34. Honl M, Dierk O, Gauck C, et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual implantation of a primary total hip replacement. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(8):1470–8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12925626. Accessed 28 Apr 2017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. AOA. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/en/annual-reports-2016. Published 2016.

  36. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, et al. The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):45–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0945-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Moschetti WE, Konopka JF, Rubash HE, Genuario JW. Can robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty be cost-effective? A Markov decision analysis. J Arthroplast. 2016;31(4):759–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.10.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Peersman G, Laskin R, Davis J, Peterson MGE, Richart T. Prolonged operative time correlates with increased infection rate after total knee arthroplasty. HSS J. 2006;2(1):70–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-005-0130-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Swank ML, Alkire M, Conditt M, Lonner JH. Technology and cost-effectiveness in knee arthroplasty: computer navigation and robotics. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2009;38(2 Suppl):32–6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19340382. Accessed 19 Aug 2016.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center, Hospital for Joint Diseases, New York, NY, USA

    Kevin K. Chen, Kelvin Y. Kim, Jonathan M. Vigdorchik, Patrick A. Meere & Joseph A. Bosco

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

    Richard Iorio

Authors
  1. Kevin K. Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kelvin Y. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jonathan M. Vigdorchik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick A. Meere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joseph A. Bosco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Richard Iorio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Iorio .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Jess H. Lonner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chen, K.K., Kim, K.Y., Vigdorchik, J.M., Meere, P.A., Bosco, J.A., Iorio, R. (2019). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Robotic Arthroplasty. In: Lonner, J. (eds) Robotics in Knee and Hip Arthroplasty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16593-2_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16593-2_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-16592-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-16593-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation