Can Robotic Arm-assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Remain Cost-effective in Volume-based Procurement System in China? A Markov Model-based Study.

OBJECTIVE: The volume based procurement (VBP) program in China was initiated in 2022. The cost-effectiveness of robotic arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is yet uncertain after the initiation of the program. The objective of the study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty and the influence of the VBP program to its cost-effectiveness in China. METHODS: The study was a Markov model-based cost-effectiveness study. Cases of primary total knee arthroplasty from January 2019 to December 2021 were included retrospectively. A Markov model was developed to simulate patients with advanced knee osteoarthritis. Manual and robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasties were compared for cost-effectiveness before and after the engagement of the VBP program in China. Probability and sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty showed better recovery and lower revision rates before and after initiation of the VBP program. Robotic arm-based TKA was superior to manual total knee arthroplasty, with an increased effectiveness of 0.26 (16.87 vs 16.61) before and 0.52 (16.96 vs 16.43) after the application of Volume-based procurement, respectively. The procedure is more cost-effective in the new procurement system (17.13 vs 16.89). Costs of manual or robotic arm-assisted TKA were the most sensitive parameters in our model. CONCLUSION: Based on previous and current medical charging systems in China, robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty is a more cost-effective procedure compared to traditional manual total knee arthroplasty. As the volume-based procurement VBP program shows, the procedure can be more cost-effective.

A Modified Strategy Using Barbed Sutures for Wound Closure in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Self-Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND Barbed suture has reported time-saving and safety benefits for wound closure in total joint arthroplasty (TJA). However, this technique requires further investigation. The aim of this study was to use a prospective, randomized, self-controlled study to further determine the efficiency and safety of this technology and to introduce our modified suturing method through a randomized, self-controlled trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS From August 2015 to December 2016, 84 patients (hip 46, knee 38) who had undergone primary simultaneous bilateral total knee or hip arthroplasties were enrolled in this study. Barbed sutures were randomized and used on one side, and traditional sutures (Vicryl) were used on the other side. RESULTS Closure time was shorter with the barbed sutures: 6.25 min (12.00 min vs. 18.25 min, p=0.000) for hip and 5.54 min (13.18 min vs. 18.71 min, p=0.000) for knee. There was no difference in the complication rate for the 2 groups. The total cost of our suturing strategy (Quill) was 872.3 RMB, which is 375.1 RMB higher than the total cost of the standard suture method (Vicryl). However, the traditional barbed suturing method (Quill) cost 2195.6 RMB. CONCLUSIONS Barbed suturing was a fast and safe method for wound closure in TJA. We also recommend our modified suturing strategy, especially in countries where operation cost was not associated with operation time.

Impact of surgical case order on peri-operative outcomes for total joint arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing support in the literatures that peri-operative outcomes are adversely affected by surgical case order in some certain surgical procedures. This study aimed to examine if similar phenomenon is also shared in total joint arthroplasty (TJA). METHODS: A total of 6548 joints (5183 patients) treated with primary TJA by a total of five surgeons at our institution from December 2011 to December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed in this study. Demographic data, operative duration, blood loss, peri-operative adverse events, medical cost, and length of hospital stay were collected and analyzed. Logistic regression was used to determine risk factors for adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 6548 cases in this cohort, 1643 TJAs were classified as first round cases, 1744 TJAs were second round cases, 1600 TJAs were third round cases, and 1561 TJAs were fourth or later round cases. Mean operating time was shorter in the intermediate cases (45.0 vs. 41.0 vs. 41.8 vs. 54.1 min, P < 0.01). Peri-operative arthroplastic adverse events were increased in later surgical cases (2.07% vs. 2.18% vs. 3.06% vs. 4.87%, P < 0.01). Later case order (OR = 1.40 [95% CI: 1.22-1.61], P < 0.01) was a significant risk factor of arthroplastic adverse events. Patients undergoing TJA later in the day were more likely to have longer length of stay and higher cost than earlier cases. Peri-operative systemic complications and blood loss did not significantly differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Surgical case order is an independent risk factor for arthroplastic adverse events in TJA. TJA procedures performed later in the day have a higher risk for arthroplastic adverse events, but not for systematic adverse events. Significantly increased operative time, higher cost, and longer LOS were noted for fourth or later TJA cases. Data in our study reveals that performing more than three TJAs within a single day may imply compromised outcomes.

A cost-utility analysis of Dynesys dynamic stabilization versus instrumented fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine diseases.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic chronic low back and leg pain resulting from lumbar spine degenerative disorders is highly prevalent in China, and for some patients, surgery is the final option for improvement. Several techniques for spinal non-fusion have been introduced to reduce the side-effects of fusion methods and hasten postoperative recovery. In this study, the authors have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Dynesys posterior dynamic stabilization system (DY) compared with lumbar fusion techniques in the treatment of single-level degenerative lumbar spinal conditions. METHODS: A total of 221 patients undergoing single-level elective primary surgery for degenerative lumbar pathology were included. 2-Year postoperative health outcomes of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaires were recorded. 2-Year back-related medical resource use, missed work, and health-state values (Quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) were assessed. Cost-effectiveness was determined by the incremental cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: At each follow-up point, both cohorts were associated with significant improvements in VAS scores, ODI, SF-36 scores and EQ-5D QALY scores, which persisted at the 2-year evaluation. The 2-year total mean cost per patient were significantly lower for Dynesys system ($20,150) compared to fusion techniques ($25,581, $27,862 and $27,314, respectively) (P < 0.001). Using EQ-5D, the mean cumulative 2-year QALYs gained were statistically equivalent between the four groups (0.28, 0.27, 0.30 and 0.30 units, respectively) (P = 0.74). Results indicate that patients implanted with the DY system derive lower total costs and more utility, on average, than those treated with fusion. CONCLUSIONS: The Dynesys dynamic stabilization system is cost effective compared to instrumented lumbar fusion for treatment of single-level degenerative lumbar disorders. It is not possible to state whether DY or lumbar fusion is more cost-effective after 2 years.