Dataset Information

Learning Curve of Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty for Non-Fellowship-Trained Orthopedic Surgeons

ABSTRACT:

Background

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) serves as a reliable treatment option for patients with end-stage arthritis, but patient dissatisfaction rate remains high. With the projected increase in the volume of arthroplasty operations, surgeons have aimed for methods in which to improve the patient outcomes. Robotic-assisted TKA has become increasingly popular. The learning curve for such technology has been investigated, but these prior studies have only been performed by fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons. The goal of this study was to investigate the learning curve for non-fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons to ameliorate any concerns about increased operative time.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of robotic-assisted TKAs and manual TKAs, performed by two non-fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons, was conducted on a total of 160 patients. For each individual surgeon, the robotic-assisted TKAs were divided into 3 cohorts of 20 consecutive patients. Data from 20 consecutive manual TKAs were also gathered for each surgeon. The mean operative times were compared. Cohorts were then grouped together for both surgeons and compared in a similar fashion.

Results

For surgeon 1, mean operative times were significantly increased for robotic-assisted cohorts compared with those for the manual cohort. For surgeon 2, the first robotic-assisted cohort was significantly longer. However, there were no significant differences for the second and third robotic-assisted cohorts. In the combined surgeon group, there was no significant difference between operative times for the third robotic cohort and the manual cohort.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that the general orthopedic surgeon in a community hospital may be able to adequately perform robotic-assisted surgery in a similar timeframe to their manual TKA within their first 40 robotic-arm-assisted TKA.

SUBMITTER: Ali M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8791856 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAn adult reconstruction (AR) fellowship is designed to provide advanced training for a broad range of primary reconstructive and complex knee revision surgeries. This study aims to identify outcome differences between primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed by AR fellowship-trained surgeons and non-AR (NAR) fellowship-trained surgeons.Material and methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 7415 patients who underwent primary TKA from 2016 to 2020. Two cohorts were established based on whether the operation was performed by an AR or NAR fellowship-trained surgeon. Demographic, clinical data, and patient-reported outcome measures were collected at various time-points (preoperatively, 3 months, 1 year). Demographic differences were assessed with chi-square and independent sample t-tests. Primary outcomes were compared using multilinear regressions, controlling for demographic differences.ResultsAR surgeons performed 5194 (70%) cases while NAR surgeons performed 2221 (30%) cases. Surgical time (minutes) significantly differed between the 2 groups (101.26 vs 111.56; P < .001). Length of stay, 90-day all-cause readmissions, revisions, and all-cause emergency department visits did not statistically differ (P = .079, P = .978, P = .094, and P = .241, respectively). AR surgeons were more likely to discharge their patients home than NAR surgeons (P = .001). NAR group reported lower KOOS, JR scores at 3 months and 1 year (preop: 45.30 vs 45.79, P = .728; 3 months: 64.73 vs 59.47, P < .001; 1 year: 71.66 vs 69.56, P = .234); however, only 3-month scores statistically differed. Veterans RAND-12 Physical and Mental components scores (VR-12 PCS and MCS) were not statistically significant at any time-point between the cohorts. Delta-improvements preoperatively to 1 year in KOOS, JR (26.36 vs 23.77; P < .001) and VR-12 PCS (11.98 vs 10.62; P < .001) scores were significantly higher for the AR cohort but did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference.ConclusionThis study demonstrates significantly shorter surgical times and greater improvements in KOOS, JR and VR-12 PCS scores associated with TKAs performed by AR fellowship-trained surgeons.Level iii evidenceRetrospective Cohort Study.

Project description:BackgroundIn older adults facing knee arthroplasty, the ability to resume downhill skiing postoperatively is unclear. This study aimed to determine the perspectives of Alberta orthopedic surgeons and senior residents regarding downhill skiing after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).MethodsIn May 2019, a Web-based survey was sent through the Alberta Orthopaedic Society to poll orthopedic surgeons performing arthroplasty and senior orthopedic residents (postgraduate year 4 or 5) in Alberta regarding the permissibility of downhill skiing after TKA or UKA. The survey also elicited information regarding under which conditions or restrictions, if any, surgeons would allow patients to return to downhill skiing, whether these recommendations were evidence based, and whether surgeons had seen complications from downhill skiing in their patients who had undergone knee arthroplasty.ResultsOf the 41 respondents, 21 (51%) were full-time fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons, 15 (37%) were specialists with some arthroplasty in their practice, and 5 (12%) were orthopedic residents. Ten of 40 respondents (25%) would allow unrestricted downhill skiing after TKA, and 1 (2%) would not allow any skiing at all. The remaining 29 (72%) indicated that they might allow downhill skiing under specific conditions, with the top 3 being limitations on speed and intensity (29 [71%]), return of full range of motion and strength in the operative knee (26 [63%]), and years of downhill ski experience (23 [56%]). Fourteen respondents (34%) would allow unrestricted downhill skiing after UKA, and 27 (66%) would allow skiing with the same top 3 conditions as for TKA. Thirty-two respondents (78%) reported that their decisions were not evidence based, and 35 (85%) had never seen complications from downhill skiing after TKA or UKA.ConclusionAlberta orthopedic surgeons and senior residents are cautious regarding skiing after knee arthroplasty. The majority reported that their restrictions were not evidence based, which indicates the need for further investigation to develop an approach for surgeons to consistently and safely address return to downhill skiing after TKA or UKA.

Project description:BackgroundTotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) with mechanical alignment (MA) aims to achieve neutral limb alignment in all patients, whereas TKA with functional alignment (FA) aims to restore native, patient-specific anatomy and knee kinematics by manipulating bone resections and fine-tuning implant positioning. The objective of this study is to determine the optimal alignment technique in TKA by comparing patient satisfaction, functional outcomes, implant survivorship, complications, and cost-effectiveness in MA TKA versus FA TKA. Robotic technology will be used to execute the planned implant positioning and limb alignment with high-levels of accuracy in all study patients.Methods and analysisThis prospective double-blinded randomised control trial will include 100 patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis undergoing primary robotic arm-assisted TKA. Following informed consent, patients will be randomised to MA TKA (the control group) or FA TKA (the investigation group) at a ratio of 1:1 using an online random number generator. Blinded observers will review patients at regular intervals for 2 years after surgery to record predefined study outcomes relating to postoperative rehabilitation, clinical progress, functional outcomes, accuracy of implant positioning and limb alignment, gait, implant stability, cost-effectiveness, and complications. A superiority study design will be used to evaluate whether FA TKA provides superior outcomes compared to MA TKA. Primary and secondary objectives will be used to quantify and draw inferences on differences in the efficacy of treatment between the two groups. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol population analysis will be undertaken. The following statistical methods will be employed to analyse the data: descriptive statistics, independent t test, paired t test, analysis of variance, Fisher exact test, chi-square test, and graphical displays. Ethical approval was obtained from the London-Surrey Research Ethics Committee, UK. The study is sponsored by University College London, UK.DiscussionThis is the first study to describe the use of robotic technology to achieve FA TKA, and the only existing clinical trial comparing robotic MA TKA versus robotic FA TKA. The findings of this study will enable an improved understanding of the optimal alignment technique in TKA for achieving high-levels of patient satisfaction, improving functional outcomes, increasing implant survivorship, improving cost-effectiveness, and reducing complications.RegistrationClinical Trials.gov, NCT04092153. Registered on 17 September 2019.

Project description:Purpose Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is widely recognized as an effective treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA). Compared with conventional TKA, robotic-arm assisted TKA may improve patients’ functionality and resulting quality of life by more accurate and precise component placement. Currently, the literature on cost-effectiveness of robotic-arm assisted TKA in the US is limited. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of robotic-arm assisted TKA relative to TKA in the Medicare-aged population including exploring the impact of hospital volume on cost-effectiveness outcomes. Methods We developed a decision-analytic model to evaluate the costs, health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of robotic-arm assisted TKA vs TKA in Medicare population with OA. We evaluated cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). We sourced costs from the literature including episode-of-care (EOC) costs from a Medicare study. We assessed cost-effectiveness of robotic-arm assisted TKA by hospital procedure volume and conducted deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Results For the average patient treated in a hospital with an annual volume of 50 procedures, robotic-arm assisted TKA resulted in a total QALY of 6.18 relative to 6.17 under conventional TKA. Total discounted costs per patient were $32,535 and $31,917 for robotic-arm assisted TKA and conventional TKA, respectively. Robotic-arm assisted TKA was cost-effective in the base case with an ICER of $41,331/QALY. In univariate DSA, cost-effectiveness outcomes were most sensitive to the annual hospital procedure volume. Robotic-arm assisted TKA was cost-effective at a WTP of $50,000/QALY only when hospital volume exceeded 49 procedures per year. In PSA, robotic-arm assisted TKA was cost-effective at a $50,000/QALY WTP threshold in 50.4% of 10,000 simulations. Conclusions Despite high robotic purchase costs, robotic-arm assisted TKA is likely to be cost-effective relative to TKA in the Medicare population with knee OA in high-volume hospitals through lowering revision rates and decreasing post-acute care costs. Higher-volume hospitals may deliver higher value in performing in robotic-arm assisted TKA.