PDF herunterladen
The Journal of Hip Surgery 2023; 07(02): 057-065
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1767794
Original Article

Quantifying 30 Years of Technological Innovation in Total Hip Arthroplasty

Kyle N. Kunze
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York
,
Pedro J. Rullán
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Ajay Potluri
3   Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Robert M. Molloy
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Viktor E. Krebs
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Nicolas S. Piuzzi
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
4   Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
› Institutsangaben Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Technological innovation in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a critical component of health care delivery for improving patient outcomes. Analyzing the content of patents and trends in their activity over time can leverage insight into innovations in THA; however, these investigations remain underutilized. We aimed to quantify patent activity and relative growth pertaining to technologies in THA over a 30-year period. A query for patents relating to “hip replacement” or “hip arthroplasty” between 1989 and 2019 using an open-source patent database yielded 24,071 unique patents for analysis. These were grouped into 12 independent technology clusters using Cooperative Patent Classification codes. Annual patent activity for each cluster was normalized with a validated formula to control for exponential growth. The 5-, 10-, and 30-year compound annual growth rates (CAGR) for each cluster were quantified and compared between clusters. Annual cumulative patent activity increased from 151 patents in 1989 to 1,182 patents in 2019, representing a 682.8% increase. The largest technology clusters concerned “drugs” (n = 6,429 patents), “instruments” (n = 4,014 patents), “materials” (n = 2,037 patents), and “components” (n = 1,946 patents). One-half of the identified clusters concerned developments in technology-assisted THA (patient-specific instrumentation, navigation, robotics, design/manufacturing, instruments, and computer modeling). The most rapidly growing technology within the past 5, 10, and 30 years was robotics (CAGR = 15.82%, 20.11%, and 9.50%, respectively). Within the past 5- and 10-year trial prostheses (CAGR = 10.76%) and design/manufacturing processes (CAGR = 10.27%), computer modeling (CAGR = 12.91%) and navigation (CAGR = 11.25%) were among the most rapidly growing clusters, respectively. The majority of patents pertaining to THA over the past 30 years have concerned developments in drugs, instruments, materials, and components. Within the past 10-years, substantial growth has been observed in patent domains related to technology-assisted THA. Monitoring of emerging technologies through patent metrics may provide valuable information for regulatory bodies and assess progress in the field of THA. This is a cross-sectional study with level of evidence IV.

Keywords

THA - patents - technology - compound annual growth - innovation


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 02. Juli 2022

Angenommen: 16. Februar 2023

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
04. April 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Hughes-Hallett A, Mayer EK, Marcus HJ. et al. Quantifying innovation in surgery. Ann Surg 2014; 260 (02) 205-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Trajtenberg M. A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND J Econ 1990; 21 (01) 172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Emara AK, Klika AK, Piuzzi NS. Evidence-based orthopedic surgery-from synthesis to practice. JAMA Surg 2020; 155 (11) 1009-1010
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kayani B, Konan S, Ayuob A, Ayyad S, Haddad FS. The current role of robotics in total hip arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev 2019; 4 (11) 618-625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Honl M, Dierk O, Gauck C. et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual implantation of a primary total hip replacement. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85 (08) 1470-1478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Spencer-Gardner L, Pierrepont J, Topham M, Baré J, McMahon S, Shimmin AJ. Patient-specific instrumentation improves the accuracy of acetabular component placement in total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (10) 1342-1346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chen AF, Kazarian GS, Jessop GW, Makhdom A. Robotic technology in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 (22) 1984-1992
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Agarwal S, Eckhard L, Walter WL. et al. The use of computer navigation in total hip arthroplasty is associated with a reduced rate of revision for dislocation: a study of 6,912 navigated THA procedures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2021; 103 (20) 1900-1905
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kunze KN, Premkumar A, Bovonratwet P, Sculco PK. Acetabular component and liner selection for the prevention of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. JBJS Rev 2021; 9 (12) DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.21.00148.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Darrith B, Courtney PM, Della Valle CJ. Outcomes of dual mobility components in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. Bone Joint J 2018; 100–B (01) 11-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Heckmann N, Weitzman DS, Jaffri H, Berry DJ, Springer BD, Lieberman JR. Trends in the use of dual mobility bearings in hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2020; 102-B (7_Supple_B, Supple_B): 27-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kreipke R, Rogmark C, Pedersen AB. et al. Dual mobility cups: effect on risk of revision of primary total hip arthroplasty due to osteoarthritis: a matched population-based study using the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association Database. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019; 101 (02) 169-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Barlow BT, McLawhorn AS, Westrich GH. The cost-effectiveness of dual mobility implants for primary total hip arthroplasty: a computer-based cost-utility model. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99 (09) 768-777
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Herzlinger R. Why Innovation in Health Care is So Hard. Harvard Business Review 2006. Accessed March 24, 2022, at: https://hbr.org/2006/05/why-innovation-in-health-care-is-so-hard
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Berwick DM. Disseminating innovations in health care. JAMA 2003; 289 (15) 1969-1975
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Slatnick BL, Truche P, Wu KC. et al. Trends in surgical patents held by surgeons from 1993 to 2018. Ann Surg 2022; 276 (06) e1107-e1113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bhatt NR, Davis NF, Dalton DM. et al. Quantitative analysis of technological innovation in urology. Urology 2018; 111: 230-237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dalton DM, Burke TP, Kelly EG, Curtin PD. Quantitative analysis of technological innovation in knee arthroplasty: using patent and publication metrics to identify developments and trends. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (06) 1366-1372
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Marcus HJ, Hughes-Hallett A, Kwasnicki RM, Darzi A, Yang G-Z, Nandi D. Technological innovation in neurosurgery: a quantitative study. J Neurosurg 2015; 123 (01) 174-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hughes-Hallett A, Mayer EK, Pratt PJ, Vale JA, Darzi AW. Quantitative analysis of technological innovation in minimally invasive surgery. Br J Surg 2015; 102 (02) e151-e157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Emara AK, Zhou G, Klika AK. et al. Is there increased value in robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty? A nationwide outcomes, trends, and projections analysis of 4,699,894 cases. Bone Joint J 2021; 103-B (09) 1488-1496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth NP. Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 (17) 1455-1460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Coccia M. Driving forces of technological change in medicine: radical innovations induced by side effects and their impact on society and healthcare. Technol Soc 2012; 34 (04) 271-283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS. et al; Balliol Collaboration. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet 2009; 374 (9695): 1089-1096
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 The Lens - Free & Open Patent and Scholarly Search. 2022. Published 2022. Accessed March 17, 2022, at: https://www.lens.org/
    PubMed
  • 26 Shultz M, Madigan K. The Long Wait for Innovation: The Global Patent Pendency Problem. 2016. Accessed March 17, 2022, at: http://cpip.gmu.edu/
    PubMed
  • 27 Patent Classification USPTO. 2022. Accessed March 17, 2022, at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/search/classification-standards-and-development
    PubMed
  • 28 Cooperative Patent Classification USPTO. 2022. Accessed March 17, 2022, at: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s905.html
    PubMed
  • 29 Patent Classification Timeline. 2022. Accessed March 17, 2022, at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Timeline.pdf
    PubMed
  • 30 Pianta M. Innovation and economic change. Econ Innov New Technol 2017; 26 (08) 683-688
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 ExtendOffice. How To Calculate Average/Compound Annual Growth Rate in Excel? 2009. Accessed March 17, 2022, at: / www.extendoffice.com/documents/excel/2596-excel-average-compound-growth-rate.html
    PubMed
  • 32 Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007; 370 (9597): 1508-1519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Markatos K, Savvidou OD, Foteinou A. et al. Hallmarks in the history and development of total hip arthroplasty. Surg Innov 2020; 27 (06) 691-694
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Pierce J, Needham K, Adams C, Coppolecchia A, Lavernia C. Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty: an economic analysis. J Comp Eff Res 2021; 10 (16) 1225-1234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Ng N, Gaston P, Simpson PMPM, Macpherson GJGJ, Patton JTJT, Clement NDND. Robotic arm-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bone Joint J 2021; 103-B (06) 1009-1020
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hepinstall M, Zucker H, Matzko C, Meftah M, Mont M. Adoption of robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty results in reliable clinical and radiographic outcomes at minimum two-year follow up. Surg Technol 2021; 38: 440-445
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Maldonado DR, Go CC, Kyin C. et al. Robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty is more cost-effective than manual total hip arthroplasty: a Markov model analysis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2021; 29 (04) e168-e177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Nodzo SR, Chang C-C, Carroll KM. et al. Intraoperative placement of total hip arthroplasty components with robotic-arm assisted technology correlates with postoperative implant position: a CT-based study. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B (10) 1303-1309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Bohl DD, Nolte MT, Ong K, Lau E, Calkins TE, Della Valle CJ. Computer-assisted navigation is associated with reductions in the rates of dislocation and acetabular component revision following primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019; 101 (03) 250-256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Hazratwala K, Brereton SG, Grant A, Dlaska CE. Computer-assisted technologies in arthroplasty: navigating your way today. JBJS Rev 2020; 8 (03) e0157-e0157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Xu K, Li YM, Zhang HF, Wang CG, Xu YQ, Li ZJ. Computer navigation in total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg 2014; 12 (05) 528-533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Kunze KN, Sculco PK, Zhong H. et al. Development and internal validation of machine learning algorithms for predicting hyponatremia after TJA. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2022; 104 (03) 265-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Polce EM, Kunze KN, Dooley MS, Piuzzi NS, Boettner F, Sculco PK. Efficacy and applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning analyses in total joint arthroplasty: a call for improved reporting. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2022; 104 (09) 821-832
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Jang SJ, Kunze KN, Vigdorchik JM, Jerabek SA, Mayman DJ, Sculco PK. John Charnley Award: deep learning prediction of hip joint center on standard pelvis radiographs. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37 (7S): S400, 407.e1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Karnuta JM, Haeberle HS, Luu BC. et al. Artificial intelligence to identify arthroplasty implants from radiographs of the hip. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (07) 290-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Hooper J, Tsiridis E, Feng JE. et al; NYU Virtual Reality Consortium. Virtual reality simulation facilitates resident training in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (10) 2278-2283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Logishetty K, Gofton WT, Rudran B, Beaulé PE, Cobb JP. Fully immersive virtual reality for total hip arthroplasty: objective measurement of skills and transfer of visuospatial performance after a competency-based simulation curriculum. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2020; 102 (06) e27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Logishetty K, Rudran B, Cobb JP. Virtual reality training improves trainee performance in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B (12) 1585-1592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Tsukada S, Ogawa H, Hirasawa N, Nishino M, Aoyama H, Kurosaka K. Augmented reality- vs accelerometer-based portable navigation system to improve the accuracy of acetabular cup placement during total hip arthroplasty in the lateral decubitus position. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37 (03) 488-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar