A multicentre prospective assessment of the utility of robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty with virtual range of motion on intraoperative implant positioning.

BACKGROUND: The growing adoption of robotic-assistance during total hip arthroplasty (THA) has provided novel means through which a patient's anatomy and dynamic spinopelvic relationship can be incorporated into surgical planning. However, the impact of enhanced technologies on intraoperative decision-making and changes to component positioning has not yet been described. METHODS: A multicentre, prospective study included 105 patients (52% women) patients who underwent robotic-assisted THA with the integration of software that incorporates a patient's pelvic tilt (PT) and virtual range-of-motion (VROM) for impingement modeling. The primary outcome of the study was the percentage of patients who underwent changes to the preoperative plan for cup position after incorporating the data from the software. RESULTS: Utilising the intraoperative VROM information, the preoperative plan for cup position was changed from the default (40° inclination and 20° anteversion) in 82/105 (78%) cases. When stratifying by spinopelvic mobility, 64% were considered normal (change ⩾ 10° and ⩽30°), 27% were stiff (change < 10°), and 9% were hypermobile (change > 30°). For all cohorts, the majority of cases (78%) deviated from the 40° inclination and 20° version target. When evaluating the proportion of cases within the Lewinnek and Callanan safe zones based on spinopelvic mobility, 19% of cases within the normal group were planned outside of both zones compared to 39% of stiff cases and 10% of hypermobile cases. CONCLUSIONS: Utilising the latest version of robotic-assisted THA software, the preoperative plan for cup position was changed in the vast majority (78%) of patients, causing substantial deviations from traditional, generic cup targets.

Workers' Compensation Patients Improved After Hip Arthroscopy for Labral Tears: A 5-Year Outcome Propensity Score-Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: The workers' compensation (WC) status has been associated with inferior outcomes in orthopaedic procedures and is usually excluded from clinical outcome studies. Therefore, comparative studies based on WC status are scarce. PURPOSE: (1) To determine outcomes of patients with WC claims treated with hip arthroscopy for labral tears at a minimum 5-year follow-up and (2) to compare these findings with a propensity score-matched control group without WC claims. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients were propensity score matched to a control group without WC claims. Data were prospectively collected for all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. Patients were included if they received primary hip arthroscopy for labral tears in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement, had a WC claim, and had preoperative and minimum 5-year follow-up patient-reported outcomes ([PROs]; modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS], Non-Arthritic Hip Score [NAHS], Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale [HOS-SSS], and visual analog scale [VAS] for pain). Clinical outcomes were measured using the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold (MOI). RESULTS: A total of 111 from 132 (84.1%) eligible WC patients met the inclusion criteria with an average follow-up time of 80.3 ± 37.3 months. WC cases demonstrated significant improvement from preoperatively to a minimum 5-year follow-up for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS for pain (P < .05). WC patients returned to work at a 66% rate, with an average clearance time of 4.7 months to light duty and 9.5 months to heavy duty. When compared with the control group, the WC group demonstrated lower pre- and postoperative PROs (P < .05); however, WC cases had a greater magnitude of improvement (ΔmHHS [P = .0012], ΔNAHS [P < .001], and ΔHOS-SSS [P = .012]). Rates of achieving MCID and MOI were similar in both groups (P > .05). The WC group went on to receive a future arthroscopy in 19 cases (17.1%), while 10 cases (4.5%) in the control group required revision arthroscopy (P < .001). Patients in both the WC and the control groups converted to total hip arthroplasty at similar rates (13.3% and 15.4%, respectively; P > .05). CONCLUSION: Patients with WC claims treated with hip arthroscopic surgery showed significant improvement and high rates of returning to work at a minimum 5-year follow-up. Although having lower scores in PROs and achieving PASS rates, no differences were found in MCID and MOI rates. Furthermore, WC patients had a greater magnitude of improvement from preoperatively to a minimum 5-year follow-up after hip arthroscopy. Therefore, even though more studies are needed to determine the causes of inconsistent outcomes in the WC population, hip arthroscopy can effectively treat labral tears in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement, regardless of the WC status.

The cost-effectiveness of outpatient surgery for primary total hip arthroplasty in the United States: a computer-based cost-utility study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of outpatient versus inpatient total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the USA, considering complication probability and the potential cost of such complications. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the societal perspective to evaluate the incremental cost and effectiveness of inpatient THA compared to outpatient THA over a lifetime horizon. Effectiveness was expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs, expressed in 2019 US dollars, transition probabilities, and health utilities were derived from the literature. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold set at $50,000/QALY. 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses was performed to evaluate the effect of the various variables on the model. RESULTS: In the base case, inpatient THA was more effective in terms of total utility (10.36 vs. 10.30 QALY), but also more costly ($48,155 ± 1673 vs. $43,288 ± 1, 606 for Medicare) than outpatient THA. Even with a lifetime horizon, the ICER was $81,116 per QALY and $140,917 per QALY for Medicare and private payer insurance, respectively, which is higher than the willingness to pay threshold. 1-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the variables having the most influence on the model were the utility of inpatient and outpatient THA and cost of inpatient and outpatient THA. CONCLUSIONS: This model determined that for a WTP threshold set at $50,000/QALY, outpatient THA is more cost-effective than inpatient THA from a societal perspective. Despite this, surgeons must weigh clinical factors first and foremost in determining if an individual patient can be safely operated on in the outpatient setting.

Robotic Arm-assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty is More Cost-Effective Than Manual Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Markov Model Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the benchmark surgical treatment of advanced and symptomatic hip osteoarthritis. Preliminary evidence suggests that the robotic arm-assisted (RAA) technology yields more accurate and reproducible acetabular cup placement, which may improve survival rate and clinical results, but economic considerations are less well-defined. The purpose of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of the RAA THA with manual THA (mTHA) modalities, considering direct medical costs and utilities from a payer's perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to analyze two potential interventions for hip osteoarthritis and degenerative joint disorder: RAA THA and mTHA. Potential outcomes of THA were categorized into the transition states: infection, dislocation, no major complications, or revision. Cumulative costs and utilities were assessed using a cycle length of 1 year over a time horizon of 5 years. RESULTS: RAA THA cohort was cost effective relative to mTHA cohort for cumulative Medicare and cumulative private payer insurance costs over the 5-year period. RAA THA cost saving had an average differential of $945 for Medicare and $1,810 for private insurance relative to mTHA while generating slightly more utility (0.04 quality-adjusted life year). The preferred treatment was sensitive to the utilities generated by successful RAA THA and mTHA. Microsimulations indicated that RAA THA was cost effective in 99.4% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: In the Medicare and private payer scenarios, RAA THA is more cost effective than conventional mTHA when considering direct medical costs from a payer's perspective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic Level III. Computer simulation model (Markov model).