Implementation of Robotic-Assisted Procedure for Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Not Economical in a High-Volume Orthopaedic Facility.

IF 1.5 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Andrea T Kwaczala, Sara E Strecker, Matthew J Solomito, Caitlin McCracken, Robert Carangelo, Daniel Witmer
{"title":"Implementation of Robotic-Assisted Procedure for Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Not Economical in a High-Volume Orthopaedic Facility.","authors":"Andrea T Kwaczala, Sara E Strecker, Matthew J Solomito, Caitlin McCracken, Robert Carangelo, Daniel Witmer","doi":"10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-25-00431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advances in elective primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) have led to the use of robotic assistance and computer navigation during surgery; recent reports have demonstrated substantial benefits of this technology. However, few studies have made a head-to-head comparison of technology with a specific focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) when preoperative patient profiles are well controlled. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare outcomes among patients who underwent conventional, robotic-assisted, and computer-navigated procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included patients aged 25 to 89 years who underwent THAs between January 2020 and May 2025. Patients were matched on age, body mass index (BMI), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and preoperative Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement and were assigned to study groups based on the technology used: (1) conventional, (2) robotic-assisted, and (3) computer-navigated. Postoperative recovery metrics between groups were compared up to 1 year from the surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 3799 patients were included: 2582 (68%) in the conventional group, 389 (10%) in the robotic-assisted group, and 828 (22%) in the computer-navigated group. PROs improved with no differences between groups by 12 months but showed slightly slower recovery in computer-navigated cases. Complication rates (return to operating room and hospital readmittance) were similar in all groups. Both robotic-assisted surgery and computer-navigated procedures cost around $1000 more than the conventional procedure, with robotic-assisted procedures taking 3 minutes longer than conventional procedures (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite added cost, the technology-assisted procedures did not offer substantial improvements to surgical outcomes when used in primary THAs in a high-volume orthopaedic hospital. When controlled by matching demographics, comorbidities, and PROs, the technology-supported THA patients had no clinically relevant differences in postoperative outcomes and had higher hospital utilization compared with the conventional group.</p>","PeriodicalId":45062,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Global Research and Reviews","volume":"10 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13395494/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Global Research and Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-25-00431","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Advances in elective primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) have led to the use of robotic assistance and computer navigation during surgery; recent reports have demonstrated substantial benefits of this technology. However, few studies have made a head-to-head comparison of technology with a specific focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) when preoperative patient profiles are well controlled. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare outcomes among patients who underwent conventional, robotic-assisted, and computer-navigated procedures.

Methods: This retrospective study included patients aged 25 to 89 years who underwent THAs between January 2020 and May 2025. Patients were matched on age, body mass index (BMI), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and preoperative Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement and were assigned to study groups based on the technology used: (1) conventional, (2) robotic-assisted, and (3) computer-navigated. Postoperative recovery metrics between groups were compared up to 1 year from the surgery.

Results: A total of 3799 patients were included: 2582 (68%) in the conventional group, 389 (10%) in the robotic-assisted group, and 828 (22%) in the computer-navigated group. PROs improved with no differences between groups by 12 months but showed slightly slower recovery in computer-navigated cases. Complication rates (return to operating room and hospital readmittance) were similar in all groups. Both robotic-assisted surgery and computer-navigated procedures cost around $1000 more than the conventional procedure, with robotic-assisted procedures taking 3 minutes longer than conventional procedures (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: Despite added cost, the technology-assisted procedures did not offer substantial improvements to surgical outcomes when used in primary THAs in a high-volume orthopaedic hospital. When controlled by matching demographics, comorbidities, and PROs, the technology-supported THA patients had no clinically relevant differences in postoperative outcomes and had higher hospital utilization compared with the conventional group.

机器人辅助全髋关节置换术的实施是不经济的大容量骨科设施。
背景:选择性原发性全髋关节置换术(THA)的进展导致手术中机器人辅助和计算机导航的使用;最近的报告已经证明了这项技术的巨大好处。然而,很少有研究在术前患者资料得到良好控制的情况下,对患者报告的结果(PROs)进行正面比较。因此,本研究的目的是比较接受传统手术、机器人辅助手术和计算机导航手术的患者的结果。方法:本回顾性研究纳入了2020年1月至2025年5月期间接受tha手术的25至89岁患者。患者根据年龄、体重指数(BMI)、Charlson合并症指数(CCI)和术前髋关节残疾和骨关节炎关节置换术结局评分进行匹配,并根据使用的技术分为研究组:(1)常规,(2)机器人辅助,(3)计算机导航。两组之间的术后恢复指标在手术后1年内进行比较。结果:共纳入3799例患者:常规组2582例(68%),机器人辅助组389例(10%),计算机导航组828例(22%)。12个月后,两组之间的PROs的改善没有差异,但在电脑导航的病例中,PROs的恢复速度略慢。并发症发生率(返回手术室和再次入院)在所有组中相似。机器人辅助手术和计算机导航手术的成本都比传统手术高出约1000美元,机器人辅助手术比传统手术耗时多3分钟(P < 0.05)。结论:尽管增加了成本,但在大型骨科医院的初级tha手术中,技术辅助手术并没有提供实质性的手术效果改善。当通过匹配的人口统计学、合并症和PROs进行控制时,与传统组相比,技术支持的THA患者在术后结局方面没有临床相关差异,并且住院利用率更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
282
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书