Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty reduces postoperative complications and length of stay without increased cost compared to navigation-guided techniques: A national analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This study compares postoperative outcomes of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) versus navigation-guided total knee arthroplasty (NG-TKA). Using Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) data, it provides an analysis of postoperative complications, mortality, hospital costs and duration of stay. METHODS: The study analysed 217,715 patients (81,830 RA-TKA; 135,885 NG-TKA) using NIS data from 2016 to 2019. Elective TKA patients were identified through the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes. Statistical analyses, including logistic regression modelling, were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences and MATLAB. RESULTS: RA-TKA patients were younger (66.1 vs. 67.1 years, p < 0.0001) and had similar mortality rates (0.024% vs. 0.018%, p = 0.342) but shorter length of stay (LOS) (1.89 vs. 2.1 days, p < 0.0001). Mean total charges were comparable between RA-TKA ($66,180) and NG-TKA ($66,251, p = 0.669). RA-TKA demonstrated lower incidences of blood-related complications (11.67% vs. 14.19%, p < 0.0001), pulmonary oedema (0.0306% vs. 0.066%, p < 0.0001), deep vein thrombosis (0.196% vs. 0.254%, p = 0.006) and acute kidney injury (AKI) (1.356% vs. 1.483%, p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: RA-TKA reduces postoperative complications and LOS without increasing costs, highlighting the relevance of this technology in patient care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Comparative evaluation of postoperative outcomes and expenditure between robotic and conventional single-level lumbar fusion surgery: a comprehensive analysis of nationwide inpatient sample data.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we investigate the evolution of lumbar fusion surgery with robotic assistance, specifically focusing on the impact of robotic technology on pedicle screw placement and fixation. Utilizing data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) covering 2016 to 2019, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of postoperative outcomes and costs for single-level lumbar fusion surgery. Traditionally, freehand techniques for pedicle screw placement posed risks, leading to the development of robotic-assisted techniques with advantages such as reduced misplacement, increased precision, smaller incisions, and decreased surgeon fatigue. However, conflicting study results regarding the efficacy of robotic assistance in comparison to conventional techniques have prompted the need for a thorough evaluation. With a dataset of 461,965 patients, our aim is to provide insights into the impact of robotic assistance on patient care and healthcare resource utilization. Our primary goal is to contribute to the ongoing discourse on the efficacy of robotic technology in lumbar fusion procedures, offering meaningful insights for optimizing patient-centered care and healthcare resource allocation. METHODS: This study employed data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) spanning the years 2016 to 2019 from USA, 461,965 patients underwent one-level lumbar fusion surgery, with 5770 of them having the surgery with the assistance of robotic technology. The study focused primarily on one-level lumbar fusion surgery and excluded non-elective cases and those with prior surgeries. The analysis encompassed the identification of comorbidities, surgical etiologies, and complications using specific ICD-10 codes. Throughout the study, a constant comparison was made between robotic and non-robotic lumbar fusion procedures. Various statistical methods were applied, with a p value threshold of < 0.05, to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: Robotic-assisted lumbar fusion surgeries demonstrated a significant increase from 2016 to 2019, comprising 1.25% of cases. Both groups exhibited similar patient demographics, with minor differences in payment methods, favoring Medicare in non-robotic surgery and more private payer usage in robotic surgery. A comparison of comorbid conditions revealed differences in the prevalence of hypertension, dyslipidemia, and sleep apnea diagnoses-In terms of hospitalization outcomes and costs, there was a slight shorter hospital stay of 3.06 days, compared to 3.13 days in non-robotic surgery, showcasing a statistically significant difference (p = 0.042). Robotic surgery has higher charges, with a mean charge of $154,673, whereas non-robotic surgery had a mean charge of $125,467 (p < 0.0001). Robotic surgery demonstrated lower rates of heart failure, acute coronary artery disease, pulmonary edema, venous thromboembolism, and traumatic spinal injury compared to non-robotic surgery, with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). Conversely, robotic surgery demonstrated increased post-surgery anemia and blood transfusion requirements compared to non-robotic patients (p < 0.0001). Renal disease prevalence was similar before surgery, but acute kidney injury was slightly higher in the robotic group post-surgery (p = 0.038). CONCLUSION: This is the first big data study on this matter, our study showed that Robotic-assisted lumbar fusion surgery has fewer post-operative complications such as heart failure, acute coronary artery disease, pulmonary edema, venous thromboembolism, and traumatic spinal injury in comparison to conventional methods. Conversely, robotic surgery demonstrated increased post-surgery anemia, blood transfusion and acute kidney injury. Robotic surgery has higher charges compared to non-robotic surgery.

Association Between Type of Face Mask and Visual Analog Scale Scores During Pain Assessment.

AIMS: To examine the association between the type of mask worn by health care professionals and assessment of pain intensity in patients after orthopedic surgery using the visual analog scale (VAS). DESIGN: A nonrandomized controlled trial conducted among 176 patients hospitalized in an orthopedic department of a hospital located in northern-central Israel from January to March 2021. METHODS: In the intervention group (n = 83), pain assessment using the VAS was performed by a health care professional wearing a transparent face mask, while in the control group (n = 93), pain assessment was performed by a health care professional wearing a standard nontransparent face mask. The initial assessment was performed by a nurse, and 15 minutes later, an additional assessment was performed by a physician. RESULTS: Health care professionals wearing a standard non-transparent mask obtained higher VAS scores than health care professionals wearing a transparent mask. In addition, nurses obtained lower VAS scores than physicians. The discrepancy in VAS scores between nurses and physicians was found in 50% of cases. This discrepancy was more prevalent among female patients, patients after knee replacement or spinal surgery, and when health care professionals were wearing a standard nontransparent mask. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the use of transparent face masks by health care professionals in an orthopedic department, particularly by nurses. In addition, this study supports the assumption of problems involving the reliability of VAS.