Affiliation:
1. Department of Translational Medicine (DiMeT), Università del Piemonte Orientale, 28100 Novara, Italy
2. Habilita S.p.A., Casa di Cura Villa Igea, Str. Moirano, 2, 15011 Acqui Terme, Italy
Abstract
Background: Even if robotic assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) is a widely used technique, there is still a gap of knowledge about whether this technology is effective in improving the patient utility. This measure is of paramount importance for conducting cost effectiveness analysis. The aim of this study was to compare the utility measure derived from self-reported outcomes questionnaires in patients who underwent RATKA compared to patients who underwent the manual surgery. Methods: We compared 72 patients operated with a robotic technique with 70 operated with traditional technique. The utility data were collected with the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis index) self-administrated questionnaire that investigates pain, stiffness and functionality of the patients, an then mapped to a utility value through a validated transforming function. We performed three surveys: the first one before the intervention (t0), the second one 1 year after the surgery (t1) and the third one at the 2 year follow up (t2). Results: we observed higher utility values in both groups. In detail, the mean utility score in the RATKA group increased from 0.37 to 0.71 (t1) and 0.78 (t2), while in the conventional group it increased from 0.41 to 0.78 (t1) and 0.78 (t2). The fixed effect coefficients of t1 and t2 were found to be 0.37 and 0.363 (p < 0.001 for both). The coefficient of the robotic technique, along with its interaction with the t1 and t2 time effect was non-significant. Conclusions: Even if at t1 the utility of patient who underwent RATKA were lower, at longer follow up (t2) we found no significant difference compared to traditional technique, leaving the superiority of robotic assisted technique yet to be proved. Our results may be useful for calculating the gained or lost Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), so that the health care system (or an insurance company) could make an appropriate decision whether to fund the robotic approach or not, after a careful assessment of the incremental costs incurred.
Reference30 articles.
1. Projections of Primary and Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030;Kurtz;J. Bone Jt. Surg.,2007
2. National Joint Registry (2023, September 22). 18th Annual NJR Report 2021. Available online: https://www.hqip.org.uk/resource/njr-18th-annual-report-2021/.
3. Future projections of total hip and knee arthroplasty in the UK: Results from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink;Culliford;Osteoarthr. Cartil.,2015
4. Istituto Superiore di Sanità (2024, January 10). Registro Italiano Artroprotesi Report Annuale 2019. Available online: https://riap.iss.it/riap/it/attivita/report/2020/10/19/report-riap-2019/.
5. Patient Dissatisfaction After Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: The Patient Perspective;Halawi;J. Arthroplast.,2019