Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2024; 37(01): 066-072
DOI: 10.1055/a-1967-2346
Original Article

The Cost Effectiveness of Unicompartmental versus Total Knee Arthroplasty

Ibin Varughese
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
,
Sarah L. Whitehouse
2   Orthopaedic Research Unit, School of Mechanical, Medical & Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
,
William J. Donnelly
3   Brisbane Orthopaedic Specialist Services, St Vincent's Private Hospital Northside, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
,
Ross W. Crawford 
2   Orthopaedic Research Unit, School of Mechanical, Medical & Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was funded by Stryker, payment of APC only.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This study examines the potential cost savings for the health system and the community in a broadly accessible model through the increased utilization of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) using robotic arm-assisted UKA (raUKA) versus conventional total knee arthroplasty (cTKA). We retrospectively reviewed 240 patients where the first 120 consecutive raUKA performed during this period were matched to 120 cTKAs. Clinical data from the medical records and costs for procedure for each component were collected. Bivariate analyses were performed on the data to determine if there were statistically significant differences by surgery type in clinical outcomes and financial costs. There was a significantly lower cost incurred for raUKA versus cTKA with an average saving of AU$7,179 per case. The operating time (86.0 vs. 75.9 minutes; p = 0.004) was significantly higher for raUKA, but the length of stay was significantly lower (1.8 vs. 4.8 days; p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the use of opioids between raUKA and cTKA (125.0 morphine equivalent [ME] vs. 522.1 ME, p < 0.001). This study demonstrated that the use of raUKA rather than cTKA in suitably indicated patients may realize significant cost savings.

Keywords

robotic arm-assisted - health - cost saving


Publication History

Received: 26 January 2022

Accepted: 18 October 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
25 October 2022

Article published online:
31 December 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Health Expenditure Australia 2019–20. In: Health and Welfare Expenditure Series No. 87. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2021. Available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/health-welfare-expenditure/health-expenditure-australia-2019-20/contents/about
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Slover J, Espehaug B, Havelin LI. et al. Cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty in elderly low-demand patients. A Markov decision analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (11) 2348-2355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ghomrawi HM, Eggman AA, Pearle AD. Effect of age on cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared with total knee arthroplasty in the U.S. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (05) 396-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Liddle AD, Judge A, Pandit H, Murray DW. Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Lancet 2014; 384 (9952): 1437-1445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991; (273) 151-156
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bolognesi MP, Greiner MA, Attarian DE. et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty among Medicare beneficiaries, 2000 to 2009. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (22) e174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Soohoo NF, Sharifi H, Kominski G, Lieberman JR. Cost-effectiveness analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (09) 1975-1982
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Kleeblad LJ, Borus TA, Coon TM, Dounchis J, Nguyen JT, Pearle AD. Midterm survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-arm-assisted medial unicompartmental knee rrthroplasty: a multicenter study. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (06) 1719-1726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty: 2021 Annual Report. Adelaide: AOA; 2021
    Google Scholar
  • 10 St Mart J-P, De Steiger R, Graves S. et al. The Early Results of Robotically Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in Australia. Australian Orthopaedic Association Annual Scientific Meeting 2018; October 2018; Perth, WA
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bozic KJ, Saleh KJ, Rosenberg AG, Rubash HE. Economic evaluation in total hip arthroplasty: analysis and review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (02) 180-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB. et al. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. United States: Oxford University Press; 1996
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Shankar S, Tetreault MW, Jegier BJ, Andersson GB, Della Valle CJ. A cost comparison of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2016; 23 (06) 1016-1019
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Faculty of Pain Medicine, Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA). . Opioid Dose Equivalence. Available at: http://www.opioidcalculator.com.au/
    PubMed
  • 15 Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS. Iatrogenic bone and soft tissue trauma in robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study and validation of a new classification system. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (08) 2496-2501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J, Rowan FE, Haddad FS. An assessment of early functional rehabilitation and hospital discharge in conventional versus robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B (01) 24-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kayani B, Konan S, Tahmassebi J, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with improved early functional recovery and reduced time to hospital discharge compared with conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B (07) 930-937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Elbuluk AM, Old AB, Bosco JA, Schwarzkopf R, Iorio R. Strategies for reducing implant costs in the revision total knee arthroplasty episode of care. Arthroplast Today 2017; 3 (04) 286-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Moschetti WE, Konopka JF, Rubash HE, Genuario JW. Can robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty be cost-effective? A Markov decision analysis. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (04) 759-765
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Robertsson O, Borgquist L, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L. Use of unicompartmental instead of tricompartmental prostheses for unicompartmental arthrosis in the knee is a cost-effective alternative. 15,437 primary tricompartmental prostheses were compared with 10,624 primary medial or lateral unicompartmental prostheses. Acta Orthop Scand 1999; 70 (02) 170-175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Koskinen E, Eskelinen A, Paavolainen P, Pulkkinen P, Remes V. Comparison of survival and cost-effectiveness between unicondylar arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis: a follow-up study of 50,493 knee replacements from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2008; 79 (04) 499-507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Willis-Owen CA, Brust K, Alsop H, Miraldo M, Cobb JP. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. Knee 2009; 16 (06) 473-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Cobb J, Henckel J, Gomes P. et al. Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective, randomised controlled study of the acrobot system. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (02) 188-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hernigou P, Deschamps G. Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (423) 161-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Batailler C, White N, Ranaldi FM, Neyret P, Servien E, Lustig S. Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (04) 1232-1240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Cool CL, Needham KA, Khlopas A, Mont MA. Revision analysis of robotic arm-assisted and manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (05) 926-931
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Curtin B, Malkani A, Lau E, Kurtz S, Ong K. Revision after total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the Medicare population. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (08) 1480-1486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW. Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following total and unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (01) 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Huq SS, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS. The learning curve associated with robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B (08) 1033-1042
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Supplementary Report. Adelaide: AOA; 2021. :1–25
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Jonas SC, Shah R, Mitra A, Deo SD. 5-Year cost/benefit analysis of revision of failed unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs); not “just” a primary total knee replacement (TKR). Knee 2014; 21 (04) 840-842
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Okafor C, Hodgkinson B, Nghiem S, Vertullo C, Byrnes J. Cost of septic and aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021; 22 (01) 706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Burn E, Liddle AD, Hamilton TW. et al. Cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental compared with total knee replacement: a population-based study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. BMJ Open 2018; 8 (04) e020977
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kazarian GS, Lonner JH, Maltenfort MG, Ghomrawi HMK, Chen AF. Cost-effectiveness of surgical and nonsurgical treatments for unicompartmental knee arthritis: a Markov model. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 (19) 1653-1660
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Clement ND, Deehan DJ, Patton JT. Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for patients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis is cost-effective: a Markov decision analysis. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B (09) 1063-1070
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Gonzales J, Lovald ST, Lau EC, Ong KL. Risk of opioid-related adverse events after primary and revision total knee arthroplasty. J Surg Orthop Adv 2018; 27 (02) 148-154
    PubMedGoogle Scholar