Abstract
The discussion of outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) requires proof that it can be done safely and effectively, and also begs the question of whether it can be performed in an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) rather than a general hospital (which raises costs and is typically less efficient). Successful outpatient UKA requires carefully crafted algorithms/protocols, home support, preoperative planning and preparation, expectation management, risk stratification (not everyone is a candidate), perioperative pain management and buy-in from patients, support networks and the health care team. Relatively little data is available on the feasibility, safety and potential cost savings associated with this shift in care.
We evaluated the costs and short term outcomes and complications of 150 consecutive UKAs performed in an ASC compared to those done in a general hospital both on an inpatient and outpatient basis. Determination of the setting of the outpatient surgery was made based on geographic preference by the patients; otherwise choice of inpatient or outpatient surgery in the hospital was left to the discretion of the surgeon and was primarily based on the patients' comorbidity profile and circumstances of home help. Total direct facility costs were calculated, including institutional supplies and services, anesthesia services, implants, additional PACU medications and services required, and costs associated with operating room use. Only total cost was evaluated, as it is the most consistent cost variable amongst the two institutions evaluated. The mean total direct cost of UKA in a general community hospital with an overnight stay was 1.24 and 1.65 times greater than the cost of UKA performed at the same hospital or an ASC on an outpatient basis, respectively. The mean total direct cost of outpatient UKA in a general hospital was 1.33 times greater than the mean total cost of UKA performed in an ASC.
Semi-autonomous robotic technology has been introduced to optimise accuracy of implant positioning and soft tissue balance in UKA, with the expectation of resultant improvement in durability and implant survivorship. Currently, nearly 20% of UKA's in the U.S. are being performed with robotic assistance. It is anticipated that there will be substantial growth in market penetration over the next decade, projecting that nearly 37% of UKA's and 23% of TKA's will be performed with robotics in 10 years (Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry, March 5, 2015). First generation robotic technology improved substantially implant position compared to conventional methods; however, high capital costs, uncertainty regarding the value of advanced technologies, and the need for preoperative CT scans were barriers to broader adoption. Newer image-free robotic technology offers an alternative method for further optimizing implant positioning and soft tissue balance without the need for preoperative CT scans and with price points that make it suitable for use in an ASC. Currently, as a result of cost and other practical issues, <1% of first generation robotic technologies are being used in ASC's. Alternatively, more than 35% of second generation robotic systems are in use in ASC's for UKA, due to favorable pricing.
In conclusion, UKA can be safely performed in the outpatient setting in select patients. Additionally, we demonstrated a substantial cost savings when UKA is performed in an outpatient setting and care is shifted from a general community hospital to an ASC. Finally, robotics can be utilised to optimise accuracy of implant placement and soft tissue balance in UKA, and newer image-free robotic technology is cost effective for outpatient UKA.
