Trends and Patient Factors Associated with Technology-assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2014

Overview

Journal Arthroplast Today

Publisher Elsevier

Date 2020 Mar 27

PMID 32211486

Citations 8

Authors

Peter P Hsiue

Clark J Chen

Cristina Villalpando

Danielle Ponzio

Amir Khoshbin

Alexandra I Stavrakis

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Technology-assisted total hip arthroplasty (TA-THA) using either computer-assisted navigation or robotic assistance has become increasingly more popular. The purpose of this study was to examine the trends and patient factors associated with TA-THA.

Methods: This is a retrospective review utilizing the National Inpatient Sample, a large national database incorporating inpatient hospitalization information. International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes were used to identify patients with hip osteoarthritis who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patients were then separated into those who underwent TA-THA or conventional THA. Outcomes of interest included annual TA-THA utilization; patient and hospital characteristics associated with TA-THA; and trends for length of stay (LOS), cost, and discharge to home.

Results: From 2005 to 2014, a total of 2,588,304 patients with hip osteoarthritis who underwent THA were identified in the National Inpatient Sample database. Of those, 39,700 (1.5%) underwent TA-THA. The number of TA-THA procedures increased from 178 (0.1% of all THA) in 2005 to 10,045 (3.0% of all THA) in 2014, which represented a 30-fold increase in incidence (-trend <.0001). TA-THA was associated with Hispanic race, higher patient income, and the Western region of the United States. During the study period, there was a trend toward decreased LOS and increased discharge to home for both TA-THA and conventional THA. TA-THA was associated with higher inpatient cost.

Conclusion: TA-THA is being increasingly used in the United States and is associated with specific patient factors. However, the value of TA-THA compared to conventional THA remains unclear and should be assessed with future research.

Level Of Evidence: III (retrospective cohort study).

Citing Articles

Trends in adoption of robotics in arthroplasty: an analysis of the Indian landscape.

Mulpur P, Jayakumar T, Kikkuri R, Annapareddy A, Hippalgaonkar K, Reddy A J Robot Surg. 2025; 19(1):62.

PMID: 39915360 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-025-02224-5.

Clinical Trends and Outcomes in Technology-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Oikonomou K, Kiritsis N, Hopper H, Satalich J, ONeill C, Ernst B J Clin Med. 2024; 13(20).

PMID: 39457984 PMC: 11508273. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13206035.

Accelerometer-based portable navigation system shows no superior accuracy over pelvic alignment guide for acetabular cup placement in total hip arthroplasty in lateral decubitus position.

Okamoto M, Takegami Y, Osawa Y, Tanaka S, Nobori T, Imagama S Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024; 144(11):4849-4856.

PMID: 39347968 DOI: 10.1007/s00402-024-05571-4.

Lower Intraoperative and Immediate Postoperative Complications in Robotic Versus Conventional Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Over 360,000 Patients.

Khanna V, Sohn G, Khanna S, Ashraf M, Mittal M, Mounsamy V Cureus. 2024; 16(4):e57726.

PMID: 38711699 PMC: 11073758. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.57726.

Patient Perception of Robotic-Assisted Total Joint Arthroplasty in a Hispanic Population.

Pinci M, Torres-Lugo N, Deliz-Jimenez D, Salem-Hernandez J, Claudio-Marcano A, Ramirez N Arthroplast Today. 2024; 25:101286.

PMID: 38292146 PMC: 10826131. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2023.101286.

References

Banerjee S, Cherian J, Elmallah R, Pierce T, Jauregui J, Mont M . Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015; 13(1):47-56. DOI: 10.1586/17434440.2016.1124018. View

Wasterlain A, Buza 3rd J, Thakkar S, Schwarzkopf R, Vigdorchik J . Navigation and Robotics in Total Hip Arthroplasty. JBJS Rev. 2017; 5(3). DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.16.00046. View

Parratte S, Ollivier M, Lunebourg A, Flecher X, Argenson J . No Benefit After THA Performed With Computer-assisted Cup Placement: 10-year Results of a Randomized Controlled Study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474(10):2085-93. PMC: 5014807. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-016-4863-7. View

Rajpaul J, Rasool M . Leg length correction in computer assisted primary total hip arthroplasty: A collective review of the literature. J Orthop. 2018; 15(2):442-446. PMC: 5990211. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2018.03.032. View

Antonios J, Korber S, Sivasundaram L, Mayfield C, Kang H, Oakes D . Trends in computer navigation and robotic assistance for total knee arthroplasty in the United States: an analysis of patient and hospital factors. Arthroplast Today. 2019; 5(1):88-95. PMC: 6470347. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2019.01.002. View

. NIH consensus conference: Total hip replacement. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Total Hip Replacement. JAMA. 1995; 273(24):1950-6. View

Lass R, Kubista B, Olischar B, Frantal S, Windhager R, Giurea A . Total hip arthroplasty using imageless computer-assisted hip navigation: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 29(4):786-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.08.020. View

Keshmiri A, Schroter C, Weber M, Craiovan B, Grifka J, Renkawitz T . No difference in clinical outcome, bone density and polyethylene wear 5-7 years after standard navigated vs. conventional cementfree total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015; 135(5):723-30. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-015-2201-2. View

Manzotti A, Cerveri P, Momi E, Pullen C, Confalonieri N . Does computer-assisted surgery benefit leg length restoration in total hip replacement? Navigation versus conventional freehand. Int Orthop. 2009; 35(1):19-24. PMC: 3014491. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-009-0903-1. View

10.

Lewinnek G, Lewis J, Tarr R, COMPERE C, Zimmerman J . Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978; 60(2):217-20. View

11.

Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M . Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(4):780-5. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00222. View

12.

Bozic K, Kurtz S, Lau E, Ong K, Vail T, Berry D . The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(1):128-33. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00155. View

13.

Ulrich S, Seyler T, Bennett D, Delanois R, Saleh K, Thongtrangan I . Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision?. Int Orthop. 2007; 32(5):597-604. PMC: 2551710. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-007-0364-3. View

14.

Kalteis T, Handel M, Herold T, Perlick L, Baethis H, Grifka J . Greater accuracy in positioning of the acetabular cup by using an image-free navigation system. Int Orthop. 2005; 29(5):272-6. PMC: 3456647. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-005-0671-5. View

15.

Domb B, El Bitar Y, Sadik A, Stake C, Botser I . Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 472(1):329-36. PMC: 3889439. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3253-7. View

16.

Boylan M, Suchman K, Vigdorchik J, Slover J, Bosco J . Technology-Assisted Hip and Knee Arthroplasties: An Analysis of Utilization Trends. J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33(4):1019-1023. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.033. View

17.

Dorr L, Malik A, Wan Z, Long W, Harris M . Precision and bias of imageless computer navigation and surgeon estimates for acetabular component position. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007; 465:92-9. DOI: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e3181560c51. View

18.

Ong K, Mowat F, Chan N, Lau E, Halpern M, Kurtz S . Economic burden of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in Medicare enrollees. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 446:22-8. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000214439.95268.59. View

19.

Ellapparadja P, Mahajan V, Deakin A, Deep K . Reproduction of Hip Offset and Leg Length in Navigated Total Hip Arthroplasty: How Accurate Are We?. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30(6):1002-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.01.027. View

20.

Jacofsky D, Allen M . Robotics in Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive Review. J Arthroplasty. 2016; 31(10):2353-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.026. View