Journal Home > Volume 1 , Issue 3
Health Care Science 2022, 1(3): 173-185 https://doi.org/10.1002/hcs2.23
Review | Open Access | Issue | Published: 02 November 2022

A systematic review on the cost‐effectiveness of the computer‐assisted orthopedic system

Show Author's Information Hua Li1,  Tengfeng Zhuang1,  Wenrui Wu1,  Wenyi Gan1,  Chongjie Wu1,  Sijun Peng1,  Songwei Huan1( ),  Ning Liu1 ( )
Department of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China
Keywords:
computer‐assisted orthopedic system, cost‐effectiveness, systematic review and meta‐analysis
Cite this article:
Li H, Zhuang T, Wu W, et al. A systematic review on the cost‐effectiveness of the computer‐assisted orthopedic system. Health Care Science, 2022, 1(3): 173-185. https://doi.org/10.1002/hcs2.23
Download citation
EndNote(RIS)
BibTeX

622

Views

23

Downloads

Citations

1

Crossref

N/A

WoS

1

Scopus

N/A

CSCD

Abstract Full text About this article

Computer‐assisted orthopedic system (CAOS) is rapidly gaining popularity in the field of precision medicine. However, the cost‐effectiveness of CAOS has not been well clarified. We performed this review to summarize and assess the cost‐effectiveness analyses (CEAs) with regard to CAOS. Publications on CEA in CAOS have been searched in PubMed and CEA Registry up to May 31, 2022. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to estimate the quality of studies. Relationships between qualities and potential factors were also examined. There were 15 eligible studies in the present review. Twelve studies evaluated CAOS joint arthroplasties and found that CAOS joint arthroplasties were cost‐effective compared to manual methods. Three studies focused on spinal surgery, two of which analyzed the cost‐effectiveness of CAOS for patients after spinal fusion, with conflicting results. One study demonstrated that CAOS was cost‐effective in spinal pedicle screw insertion. The mean QHES score of CEAs included was 86.1. The potential factors had no significant relationship with the quality of studies. Based on available studies, our review reflected that CAOS was cost‐effective in the field of joint arthroplasty. While in spinal surgery, the answer was unclear. Current CEAs represent high qualities, and more CEAs are required in the different disciplines of orthopedics where CAOS is employed.


menu
Abstract
Full text
Outline
About this article

A systematic review on the cost‐effectiveness of the computer‐assisted orthopedic system

Show Author's information Hua Li1, Tengfeng Zhuang1, Wenrui Wu1, Wenyi Gan1, Chongjie Wu1, Sijun Peng1, Songwei Huan1( ), Ning Liu1 ( )
Department of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China

Abstract

Computer‐assisted orthopedic system (CAOS) is rapidly gaining popularity in the field of precision medicine. However, the cost‐effectiveness of CAOS has not been well clarified. We performed this review to summarize and assess the cost‐effectiveness analyses (CEAs) with regard to CAOS. Publications on CEA in CAOS have been searched in PubMed and CEA Registry up to May 31, 2022. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to estimate the quality of studies. Relationships between qualities and potential factors were also examined. There were 15 eligible studies in the present review. Twelve studies evaluated CAOS joint arthroplasties and found that CAOS joint arthroplasties were cost‐effective compared to manual methods. Three studies focused on spinal surgery, two of which analyzed the cost‐effectiveness of CAOS for patients after spinal fusion, with conflicting results. One study demonstrated that CAOS was cost‐effective in spinal pedicle screw insertion. The mean QHES score of CEAs included was 86.1. The potential factors had no significant relationship with the quality of studies. Based on available studies, our review reflected that CAOS was cost‐effective in the field of joint arthroplasty. While in spinal surgery, the answer was unclear. Current CEAs represent high qualities, and more CEAs are required in the different disciplines of orthopedics where CAOS is employed.

Keywords: computer‐assisted orthopedic system, cost‐effectiveness, systematic review and meta‐analysis

References(74)

Brauer CA, Rosen AB, Olchanski NV, Neumann PJ. Cost‐utility analyses in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1253–9.
DOI Google Scholar
Sanders GD, Maciejewski ML, Basu A. Overview of cost‐effectiveness analysis. JAMA. 2019;321:1400–1.
DOI Google Scholar
Chao TE, Sharma K, Mandigo M, Hagander L, Resch SC, Weiser TG, et al. Cost‐effectiveness of surgery and its policy implications for global health: a systematic review and analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2014;2:e334–45.
DOI Google Scholar
Neumann PJ, Sanders GD. Cost‐effectiveness analysis 2.0. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:203–5.
DOI Google Scholar
Kim YH, Yoon SH, Park JW, Does Robotic‐assisted TKA. Result in better outcome scores or long‐term survivorship than conventional TKA? A randomized, controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020;478:266–75.
DOI Google Scholar
Jacofsky DJ, Allen M. Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:2353–63.
DOI Google Scholar
Ahern DP, Gibbons D, Schroeder GD, Vaccaro AR, Butler JS. Image‐guidance robotics, and the future of spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg. 2020;33:179–84.
DOI Google Scholar
Zhang Q, Han XG, Xu YF, Fan MX, Zhao JW, Liu YJ, et al. Robotic navigation during spine surgery. Expert Rev Med Dev. 2020;17:27–32.
DOI Google Scholar
Karthik K, Colegate‐Stone T, Dasgupta P, Tavakkolizadeh A, Sinha J. Robotic surgery in trauma and orthopaedics: a systematic review. Bone Joint J. 2015;97‐B:292–9.
DOI Google Scholar
Goradia VK. Computer‐assisted and robotic surgery in orthopedics: where we are in 2014. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2014;22:202–5.
DOI Google Scholar
Zhang JN, Fan Y, He X, Liu TJ, Hao DJ. Comparison of robot‐assisted and freehand pedicle screw placement for lumbar revision surgery. Int Orthop. 2021;45:1531–8.
DOI Google Scholar
Sires JD, Craik JD, Wilson CJ. Accuracy of bone resection in MAKO total knee robotic‐assisted surgery. J Knee Surg. 2021;34:745–8.
DOI Google Scholar
Kayani B, Konan S, Thakrar RR, Huq SS, Haddad FS. Assuring the long‐term total joint arthroplasty: a triad of variables. Bone Joint J. 2019;101‐b:11–8.
DOI Google Scholar
Kotani T, Akazawa T, Sakuma T, Nakayama K, Kishida S, Muramatsu Y, et al. Accuracy of powered surgical instruments compared with manual instruments for pedicle screw insertion: evaluation using o‐arm‐based navigation in scoliosis surgery. J Orthop Sci. 2018;23:765–9.
DOI Google Scholar
Manning W, Ghosh M, Wilson I, Hide G, Longstaff L, Deehan D. Improved mediolateral load distribution without adverse laxity pattern in robot‐assisted knee arthroplasty compared to a standard manual measured resection technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28:2835–45.
DOI Google Scholar
Suarez‐Ahedo C, Gui C, Martin TJ, Chandrasekaran S, Lodhia P, Domb BG. Robotic‐arm assisted total hip arthroplasty results in smaller acetabular cup size in relation to the femoral head size: a matched‐pair controlled study. Hip Int. 2017;27:147–52.
DOI Google Scholar
Khlopas A, Sodhi N, Hozack WJ, Chen AF, Mahoney OM, Kinsey T, et al. Patient‐reported functional and satisfaction outcomes after robotic‐arm‐assisted total knee arthroplasty: early results of a prospective multicenter investigation. J Knee Surg. 2020;33:685–90.
DOI Google Scholar
Hadley CJ, Grossman EL, Mont MA, Salem HS, Catani F, Marcovigi A. Robotic‐assisted versus manually implanted total hip arthroplasty: a clinical and radiographic comparison. Surg Technol Int. 2020;37:371–6.
Google Scholar
Liounakos JI, Kumar V, Jamshidi A, Silman Z, Good CR, Schroerlucke SR, et al. Reduction in complication and revision rates for robotic‐guided short‐segment lumbar fusion surgery: results of a prospective, multi‐center study. J Robot Surg. 2021;15:793–802.
DOI Google Scholar
Antonios JK, Korber S, Sivasundaram L, Mayfield C, Kang HP, Oakes DA, et al. 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;5:88–95.
DOI Google Scholar
Kelley BV, Hsiue PP, Upfill‐Brown AM, Chen CJ, Villalpando C, Lord EL, et al. Utilization trends and outcomes of computer‐assisted navigation in spine fusion in the United States. Spine J. 2021;21:1246–55.
DOI Google Scholar
Domb BG, El Bitar YF, Sadik AY, Stake CE, Botser IB. Comparison of robotic‐assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched‐pair controlled study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:329–36.
DOI Google Scholar
Cool CL, Needham KA, Khlopas A, Mont MA. Revision analysis of robotic Arm‐Assisted and manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34:926–31.
DOI Google Scholar
Bush AN, Ziemba‐Davis M, Deckard ER, Meneghini RM. An experienced surgeon can meet or exceed robotic accuracy in manual unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101:1479–84.
DOI Google Scholar
Passias PG, Brown AE, Alas H, Bortz CA, Pierce KE, Hassanzadeh H, et al. A cost benefit analysis of increasing surgical technology in lumbar spine fusion. Spine J. 2021;21:193–201.
DOI Google Scholar
Hickey MD, Anglin C, Masri B, Hodgson AJ. How large a study is needed to detect TKA revision rate reductions attributable to robotic or navigated technologies? A simulation‐based power analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021;479:2350–61.
DOI Google Scholar
DeFrance MJ, Yayac MF, Courtney PM, Squire MW. The impact of author financial conflicts on robotic‐assisted joint arthroplasty research. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36:1462–69.
DOI Google Scholar
Nwachukwu BU, Schairer WW, Bernstein JL, Dodwell ER, Marx RG, Allen AA. Cost‐effectiveness analyses in orthopaedic sports medicine: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43:1530–7.
DOI Google Scholar
Kepler CK, Wilkinson SM, Radcliff KE, Vaccaro AR, Anderson DG, Hilibrand AS, et al. Cost‐utility analysis in spine care: a systematic review. Spine J. 2012;12:676–90.
DOI Google Scholar
Coyle S, Kinsella S, Lenehan B, Queally JM. Cost‐utility analysis in orthopaedic trauma; what pays? A systematic review. Injury. 2018;49:575–84.
DOI Google Scholar
Nwachukwu BU, Bozic KJ, Schairer WW, Bernstein JL, Jevsevar DS, Marx RG, et al. Current status of cost utility analyses in total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:1815–27.
DOI Google Scholar
Turner HC, Archer RA, Downey LE, Isaranuwatchai W, Chalkidou K, Jit M, et al. An introduction to the main types of economic evaluations used for informing priority setting and resource allocation in healthcare: key features, uses, and limitations. Front Public Health. 2021;9:722927.
DOI Google Scholar
Petrou S, Gray A. Economic evaluation alongside randomised controlled trials: design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2011;342:d1548.
DOI Google Scholar
Drummond MF, Richardson WS, O'Brien BJ, Levine M, Heyland D. Users' guides to the medical literature. XIII. How to use an article on economic analysis of clinical practice. A. Are the results of the study valid? Evidence‐based medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1997;277:1552–7.
DOI Google Scholar
Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, Brock DW, Feeny D, Krahn M, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost‐effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost‐effectiveness in health and Medicine. JAMA. 2016;316:1093–103.
DOI Google Scholar
Kim DD, Silver MC, Kunst N, Cohen JT, Ollendorf DA, Neumann PJ. Perspective and costing in cost‐effectiveness analysis, 1974–2018. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38:1135–45.10.1007/s40273-020-00942-2
DOI Google Scholar
Lan RH, Yu J, Samuel LT, Pappas MA, Brooks PJ, Kamath AF. How are we measuring cost‐effectiveness in total joint arthroplasty studies? Systematic review of literature. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35:3364–74.
DOI Google Scholar
Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Chandler J, Welch VA, Higgins JP, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10:ED000142.
DOI Google Scholar
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta‐analysis protocols (PRISMA‐P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647.
DOI Google Scholar
Pitt C, Goodman C, Hanson K. Economic evaluation in global perspective: a bibliometric analysis of recent literature. Health Econ. 2016;25(Suppl 1):9–28.
DOI Google Scholar
Briggs AH, O'Brien BJ. The death of cost‐minimization analysis?Health Econ. 2001;10:179–84.
DOI Google Scholar
Ofman JJ, Sullivan SD, Neumann PJ, Chiou CF, Henning JM, Wade SW, et al. Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: implications of utilizing the QHES. J Manag Care Pharm. 2003;9:53–61.
DOI Google Scholar
Yeroushalmi D, Feng J, Nherera L, Trueman P, Schwarzkopf R. Early economic analysis of robotic‐assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty may be cost effective in patients with end‐stage osteoarthritis. J Knee Surg. 2020;35:39–46.
DOI Google Scholar
Vermue H, Tack P, Gryson T, Victor J. Can robot‐assisted total knee arthroplasty be a cost‐effective procedure? A Markov decision analysis. Knee. 2021;29:345–52.
DOI Google Scholar
Slover JD, Tosteson AN, Bozic KJ, Rubash HE, Malchau H. Impact of hospital volume on the economic value of computer navigation for total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1492–500.
DOI Google Scholar
Novak EJ, Silverstein MD, Bozic KJ. The cost‐effectiveness of computer‐assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:2389–97.
DOI Google Scholar
Nherera LM, Verma S, Trueman P, Jennings S. Early economic evaluation demonstrates that noncomputerized tomography robotic‐assisted surgery is cost‐effective in patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at high‐volume orthopaedic centres. Adv Orthop. 2020;2020:3460675.
DOI Google Scholar
Moschetti WE, Konopka JF, Rubash HE, Genuario JW. Can robot‐assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty be cost‐effective? A Markov decision analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:759–65.
DOI Google Scholar
Maldonado DR, Go CC, Kyin C, Rosinsky PJ, Shapira J, Lall AC, 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:e168–77.
DOI Google Scholar
Gøthesen Ø, Slover J, Havelin L, Askildsen JE, Malchau H, Furnes O. An economic model to evaluate cost‐effectiveness of computer assisted knee replacement surgery in Norway. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:202.
DOI Google Scholar
Dong H, Buxton M. Early assessment of the likely cost‐effectiveness of a new technology: a Markov model with probabilistic sensitivity analysis of computer‐assisted total knee replacement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:191–202.
DOI Google Scholar
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:1063–70.
DOI Google Scholar
Rajan PV, Khlopas A, Klika A, Molloy R, Krebs V, Piuzzi NS. The cost‐effectiveness of robotic‐assisted versus manual total knee arthroplasty: a Markov model‐based evaluation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2022;30:168–76.
DOI Google Scholar
Clement ND, Gaston P, Hamilton DF, Bell A, Simpson P, Macpherson GJ, et al. A cost‐utility analysis of robotic arm‐assisted total hip arthroplasty: using robotic data from the private sector and manual data from The National Health Service. Adv Orthop. 2022;2022:5962260.
DOI Google Scholar
Garcia D, Akinduro OO, De Biase G, Sousa‐Pinto B, Jerreld DJ, Dholakia R, et al. Robotic‐assisted vs nonrobotic‐assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a cost‐utility analysis. Neurosurgery. 2022;90:192–8.
DOI Google Scholar
Dea N, Fisher CG, Batke J, Strelzow J, Mendelsohn D, Paquette SJ, et al. Economic evaluation comparing intraoperative cone beam CT‐based navigation and conventional fluoroscopy for the placement of spinal pedicle screws: a patient‐level data cost‐effectiveness analysis. Spine J. 2016;16:23–31.
DOI Google Scholar
Tian W, Liu B, He D, Liu Y, Han X, Zhao J, et al. Guidelines for navigation‐assisted spine surgery. Front Med. 2020;14:518–27.
DOI Google Scholar
Trieu J, Schilling C, Dowsey MM, Choong PF. The cost‐effectiveness of computer navigation in primary total knee replacement: a scoping review. EFORT Open Rev. 2021;6:173–80.
DOI Google Scholar
Brauer CA, Neumann PJ, Rosen AB. Trends in cost effectiveness analyses in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;457:42–8.
DOI Google Scholar
McCabe C, Claxton K, Culyer AJ. The NICE cost‐effectiveness threshold: what it is and what that means. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:733–44.
DOI Google Scholar
Bertram MY, Lauer JA, De Joncheere K, Edejer T, Hutubessy R, Kieny MP, et al. Cost‐effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94:925–30.
DOI Google Scholar
Braithwaite RS, Meltzer DO, King JT, Jr., Leslie D, Roberts MS. What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality‐adjusted life‐year decision rule?Med Care. 2008;46:349–56.
DOI Google Scholar
Murray CJ, Evans DB, Acharya A, Baltussen RM. Development of WHO guidelines on generalized cost‐effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 2000;9:235–51.
DOI
Chang RW, Pellisier JM, Hazen GB. A cost‐effectiveness analysis of total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the hip. JAMA. 1996;275:858–65.
DOI Google Scholar
Dakin H, Gray A, Fitzpatrick R, Maclennan G, Murray D. Rationing of total knee replacement: a cost‐effectiveness analysis on a large trial data set. BMJ Open. 2012;2:e000332.
DOI Google Scholar
Karuppiah K, Sinha J. Robotics in trauma and orthopaedics. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2018;100:8–15.
DOI Google Scholar
Lieber AM, Kirchner GJ, Kerbel YE, Khalsa AS. Robotic‐assisted pedicle screw placement fails to reduce overall postoperative complications in fusion surgery. Spine J. 2019;19:212–7.
DOI Google Scholar
Burn E, Prieto‐Alhambra D, Hamilton TW, Kennedy JA, Murray DW, Pinedo‐Villanueva R. Threshold for computer‐ and robot‐assisted knee and hip replacements in the English national health service. Value Health. 2020;23:719–26.
DOI Google Scholar
MacAskill M, Blickenstaff B, Caughran A, Bullock M. Revision total knee arthroplasty using robotic arm technology. Arthroplast Today. 2022;13:35–42.
DOI Google Scholar
Simcox T, Tarazona D, Becker J, Ayres E, Gould J. Improved implant positioning of cephalomedullary nail for trochanteric fractures using the Stryker ADAPT navigation system. Injury. 2021;52:3404–7.
DOI Google Scholar
Wong KC, Kumta SM. Computer‐assisted tumor surgery in malignant bone tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:750–61.
DOI Google Scholar
Zhang S, Liu YB, Ma MY, Cao Z, Kong XP, Chai W. Revision total hip arthroplasty with severe acetabular defect: a preliminary exploration and attempt of robotic‐assisted technology. Orthop Surg. 2022;14:1912–7.
DOI Google Scholar
Takai H, Murayama M, Kii S, Mito D, Hayai C, Motohashi S, et al. Accuracy analysis of computer‐assisted surgery for femoral trochanteric fracture using a fluoroscopic navigation system: Stryker ADAPT(®) system. Injury. 2018;49:1149–54.
DOI Google Scholar
Zhu ZD, Xiao CW, Tan B, Tang XM, Wei D, Yuan JB, et al. TiRobot‐assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation in the treatment of femoral neck fractures: a minimum 2‐year follow‐up of 50 patients. Orthop Surg. 2021;13:244–52.
DOI Google Scholar
Publication history
Copyright
Acknowledgements
Rights and permissions

Publication history

Received: 11 July 2022
Accepted: 14 September 2022
Published: 02 November 2022
Issue date: December 2022

Copyright

© 2022 The Authors.

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Bell Wong for his help in polishing the manuscript.

Rights and permissions

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Return