Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2022; 35(01): 039-046
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1712088
Original Article

Early Economic Analysis of Robotic-Assisted Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty May Be Cost Effective in Patients with End-Stage Osteoarthritis

David Yeroushalmi 
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
James Feng 
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
,
Leo Nherera
2   Department of Orthopedics, Smith & Nephew Inc, Fort Worth, Texas
,
Paul Trueman
2   Department of Orthopedics, Smith & Nephew Inc, Fort Worth, Texas
,
Ran Schwarzkopf
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations Funding This study received its financial support from Smith and Nephew, Smith and Nephew Orthopaedics.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA), as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA), has been shown to be an effective option for patients with single-compartment end-stage knee osteoarthritis. Implant survival is contingent upon proper alignment, which has been improved with the advent of robotic-assisted surgery (r-UKA), but whether this outweighs the increased cost of the robotic-assist device has not been analyzed in the literature. The purpose of this study was to investigate the mid-term cost-effectiveness of r-UKA compared with UKA with traditional instrumentation (t-UKA) in the United States. A cost-effectiveness analysis using a four-state Markov model was performed using data from the 2018 National Joint Registry of England and Wales and a retrospective multicenter, cohort study on a cohort of 65-year-old patients having undergone r-UKA. The main outcome was cost per revision avoided and sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of using different model assumptions on the results. The Markov model illustrated that the benefit derived from r-UKA versus t-UKA was beneficial from a payer's perspective. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $14,737 per revision avoided in a facility seeing 100 patients a year. Case volume was shown to be the primary variable affecting cost-effectiveness, with the value of r-UKA directly increasing with higher case volumes. Cost-effectiveness analyses demonstrated that the use of r-UKA is an effective alternative to t-UKA in patients with single-compartment knee osteoarthritis. While this study could benefit from longer follow-up clinical studies to illustrate the benefits of r-UKAs beyond the current 2 years time horizon, r-UKAs remained cost-effective, even after investigating several different assumptions.

Keywords

navigation - robotics - unicondylar knee arthroplasty - total knee arthroplasty


Publication History

Received: 10 September 2019

Accepted: 31 March 2020

Article published online:
29 May 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Slover J, Espehaug B, Havelin LI. et al. Cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty in elderly low-demand patients. A Markov decision analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (11) 2348-2355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Argenson JNA, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubaniac JM. Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84 (12) 2235-2239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ. et al. Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (05) 999-1006
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Soohoo NF, Sharifi H, Kominski G, Lieberman JR. Cost-effectiveness analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (09) 1975-1982
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Burn E, Sanchez-Santos MT, Pandit HG. et al. Ten-year patient-reported outcomes following total and minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched cohort analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (05) 1455-1464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hunt LP, Ben-Shlomo Y, Clark EM. et al; National Joint Registry for England and Wales. 45-day mortality after 467,779 knee replacements for osteoarthritis from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales: an observational study. Lancet 2014; 384 (9952): 1429-1436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW. Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 2014; 384 (9952): 1437-1445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ali AM, Loeffler MD, Aylin P, Bottle A. Predictors of 30-day readmission after total knee arthroplasty: analysis of 566,323 procedures in the United Kingdom. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (02) 242-248.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bolognesi MP, Greiner MA, Attarian DE. et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty among Medicare beneficiaries, 2000 to 2009. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (22) e174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 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
  • 11 Shankar S, Tetreault MW, Jegier BJ, Andersson GB, Della Valle CJ. A cost comparison of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2016; 23 (06) 1016-1019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Song EK, , N M, Lee SH, Na BR, Seon JK. Comparison of outcome and survival after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty between navigation and conventional techniques with an average 9-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (02) 395-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Battenberg AK, Netravali NA, Lonner JH. A novel handheld robotic-assisted system for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: surgical technique and early survivorship. J Robot Surg 2020; 14 (01) 55-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Swank ML, Alkire M, Conditt M, Lonner JH. Technology and cost-effectiveness in knee arthroplasty: computer navigation and robotics. Am J Orthop 2009; 38 (02) 32-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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 (08) 627-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Cobb J, Henckel J, Gomes P. et al. Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective, randomised controlled study of the acrobot system. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (02) 188-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Khare R, Jaramaz B, Hamlin B, Urish KL. Implant orientation accuracy of a hand-held robotic partial knee replacement system over conventional technique in a cadaveric test. Comput Assist Surg (Abingdon) 2018; 23 (01) 8-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lonner JH, Smith JR, Picard F, Hamlin B, Rowe PJ, Riches PE. High degree of accuracy of a novel image-free handheld robot for unicondylar knee arthroplasty in a cadaveric study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (01) 206-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Boylan M, Suchman K, Vigdorchik J, Slover J, Bosco J. Technology-assisted hip and knee arthroplasties: an analysis of utilization trends. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (04) 1019-1023
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Jacofsky DJ, Allen M. Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (10) 2353-2363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Citak M, Suero EM, Citak M. et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is robotic technology more accurate than conventional technique?. Knee 2013; 20 (04) 268-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Herry Y, Batailler C, Lording T, Servien E, Neyret P, Lustig S. Improved joint-line restitution in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using a robotic-assisted surgical technique. Int Orthop 2017; 41 (11) 2265-2271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kleeblad LJ, Borus TA, Coon TM, Dounchis J, Nguyen JT, Pearle AD. Midterm survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-arm-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter study. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (06) 1719-1726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Gilmour A, MacLean AD, Rowe PJ. et al. Robotic-arm-assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. the 2-year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (7S) S109-S115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Plate JF, Mofidi A, Mannava S. et al. Achieving accurate ligament balancing using robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Adv Orthop 2013; 2013: 837167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Moschetti WE, Konopka JF, Rubash HE, Genuario JW. Can robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty be cost-effective? A Markov decision analysis. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (04) 759-765
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 How NAVIO Works | Smith & Nephew n.d. Accessed March 3, 2020 at: https://www.smith-nephew.com/professional/microsites/navio/how-navio-works/how-navio-works/
  • 28 Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 1993; 13 (04) 322-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Gentleman E, Swain RJ, Evans ND. et al. Comparative materials differences revealed in engineered bone as a function of cell-specific differentiation. Nat Mater 2009; 8 (09) 763-770
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Fleurence RL, Hollenbeak CS. Rates and probabilities in economic modelling: transformation, translation and appropriate application. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25 (01) 3-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Arias E, Heron M, Xu J. United States Life Tables, 2013. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2017; 66 (03) 1-64
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996; 276 (15) 1253-1258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Hamilton TW, Rizkalla JM, Kontochristos L. et al. The interaction of caseload and usage in determining outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (10) 3228-3237.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Badawy M, Fenstad AM, Bartz-Johannessen CA. et al. Hospital volume and the risk of revision in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the Nordic countries -an observational study of 14,496 cases. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017; 18 (01) 388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW. Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following total and unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (01) 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Unit B. Physician Fee Schedule 2012 2012: 1-398 . Accessed April 15, 2020 at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/PhysicianFeeSched/PFS-Relative-Value-Files-Items/CMS1254038
  • 37 Waimann CA, Fernandez-Mazarambroz RJ, Cantor SB. et al. Cost-effectiveness of total knee replacement: a prospective cohort study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2014; 66 (04) 592-599
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar