Suppr超能文献

机器人辅助全髋关节置换术相关植入物废物率的降低。

Reduction in rate of implant waste associated with robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty.

作者信息

Shen Tony S, Cheng Ryan, Chiu Yu-Fen, McLawhorn Alexander S, Figgie Mark P, Westrich Geoffrey H

机构信息

Department of Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.

Department of Biostatistics, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.

出版信息

Bone Jt Open. 2024 Aug 23;5(8):715-720. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.58.BJO-2024-0061.R1.

Abstract

AIMS

Implant waste during total hip arthroplasty (THA) represents a significant cost to the USA healthcare system. While studies have explored methods to improve THA cost-effectiveness, the literature comparing the proportions of implant waste by intraoperative technology used during THA is limited. The aims of this study were to: 1) examine whether the use of enabling technologies during THA results in a smaller proportion of wasted implants compared to navigation-guided and conventional manual THA; 2) determine the proportion of wasted implants by implant type; and 3) examine the effects of surgeon experience on rates of implant waste by technology used.

METHODS

We identified 104,420 implants either implanted or wasted during 18,329 primary THAs performed on 16,724 patients between January 2018 and June 2022 at our institution. THAs were separated by technology used: robotic-assisted (n = 4,171), imageless navigation (n = 6,887), and manual (n = 7,721). The primary outcome of interest was the rate of implant waste during primary THA.

RESULTS

Robotic-assisted THA resulted in a lower proportion (1.5%) of implant waste compared to navigation-guided THA (2.0%) and manual THA (1.9%) (all p < 0.001). Both navigated and manual THA were more likely to waste acetabular shells (odds ratio (OR) 4.5 vs 3.1) and polyethylene liners (OR 2.2 vs 2.0) compared to robotic-assisted THA after adjusting for demographic and perioperative factors, such as surgeon experience (p < 0.001). While implant waste decreased with increasing experience for procedures performed manually (p < 0.001) or with navigation (p < 0.001), waste rates for robotic-assisted THA did not differ based on surgical experience.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted THAs wasted a smaller proportion of acetabular shells and polyethylene liners than navigation-guided and manual THAs. Individual implant waste rates vary depending on the type of technology used intraoperatively. Future studies on implant waste during THA should examine reasons for non-implantation in order to better understand and develop methods for cost-saving.

摘要

目的

全髋关节置换术(THA)中的植入物浪费对美国医疗系统来说是一项巨大的成本。虽然已有研究探索了提高THA成本效益的方法,但比较THA术中所使用技术的植入物浪费比例的文献有限。本研究的目的是:1)研究与导航引导和传统手动THA相比,THA期间使用辅助技术是否会使植入物浪费的比例更小;2)确定按植入物类型划分的浪费植入物的比例;3)研究外科医生经验对按所使用技术划分的植入物浪费率的影响。

方法

我们确定了2018年1月至2022年6月期间在我们机构对16724例患者进行 的18329例初次THA中植入或浪费的104420个植入物。THA按所使用的技术分类:机器人辅助(n = 4171)、无图像导航(n = 6887)和手动(n = 7721)。感兴趣的主要结果是初次THA期间的植入物浪费率。

结果

与导航引导THA(2.0%)和手动THA(1.9%)相比,机器人辅助THA导致的植入物浪费比例更低(1.5%)(所有p < 0.001)。在调整了人口统计学和围手术期因素(如外科医生经验)后,与机器人辅助THA相比,导航和手动THA浪费髋臼杯(优势比(OR)为4.5对3.1)和聚乙烯衬垫(OR为2.2对2.0)的可能性更大(p < 0.001)。虽然手动操作(p < 0.001)或使用导航(p < 0.001)的手术中,植入物浪费随着经验增加而减少,但机器人辅助THA的浪费率不因手术经验而异。

结论

与导航引导和手动THA相比,机器人辅助THA浪费的髋臼杯和聚乙烯衬垫比例更小。单个植入物的浪费率因术中使用的技术类型而异。未来关于THA期间植入物浪费的研究应检查未植入的原因,以便更好地理解并开发节省成本的方法。

相似文献

1
Reduction in rate of implant waste associated with robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty.
Bone Jt Open. 2024 Aug 23;5(8):715-720. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.58.BJO-2024-0061.R1.
3
Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with the use of thinner polyethylene liners compared to navigation-guided and manual techniques.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2024 Sep;32(9):2290-2296. doi: 10.1002/ksa.12228. Epub 2024 May 13.
6
Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jan;472(1):329-36. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-3253-7. Epub 2013 Aug 29.
8
Readmission rate and healthcare utilization outcomes of computer-assisted fluoroscopy-based hip navigation versus manual total hip arthroplasty.
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2023 Jul-Dec;20(9):779-789. doi: 10.1080/17434440.2023.2238609. Epub 2023 Jul 25.
9
All Enabling Technology Is Not Created Equal: Comparing Outcomes of Computer-Assisted Fluoroscopic Navigation Versus Robotic-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty.
J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2024 Dec 23;8(12). doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00324. eCollection 2024 Dec 1.

本文引用的文献

1
Functional implant positioning in total hip arthroplasty and the role of robotic-arm assistance.
Int Orthop. 2023 Feb;47(2):573-584. doi: 10.1007/s00264-022-05646-0. Epub 2022 Dec 11.
2
Robotics in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Current Concepts.
J Clin Med. 2022 Nov 10;11(22):6674. doi: 10.3390/jcm11226674.
4
Robotic arm-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty : a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bone Joint J. 2021 Jun;103-B(6):1009-1020. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B6.BJJ-2020-1856.R1.
5
Robotic arm-assisted versus manual total hip arthroplasty.
Bone Joint Res. 2021 Jan;10(1):22-30. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.101.BJR-2020-0161.R1.
7
Current topics in robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty: a review.
Hip Int. 2020 Mar;30(2):118-124. doi: 10.1177/1120700019893636. Epub 2019 Dec 23.
9
Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty: Clinical outcomes and complication rate.
Int J Med Robot. 2018 Aug;14(4):e1912. doi: 10.1002/rcs.1912. Epub 2018 May 15.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验