Background: The rates of primary and revision knee arthroplasty in the United States have been increasing. Simultaneously, several studies have reported increased complication rates when these procedures are performed at low-volume centers. One innovation designed to improve knee arthroplasty outcomes is computer navigation, which aims to reduce revision rates by improving the alignment achieved at surgery. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of hospital volume on the costeffectiveness of this new technology in order to determine its feasibility and the level of evidence that should be sought prior to its adoption.

Methods: A Markov decision model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted knee arthroplasty, in relation to hospital volume. Transition probabilities were estimated from the arthroplasty literature, and costs were based on the average reimbursement for primary and revision knee arthroplasty at out institution. Outcomes were measured in quality adjusted life years.

Results: The results demonstrate that computer-assisted surgery becomes less cost-effective as the annual hospital volume decreases, as the cost of navigation increases, and as the impact on revision rates decreases. If a center performs 250 cases per year, computer navigation will be cost-effective if the annual revision rate is reduced by 2% per year over a twenty-year period. If a center performs 150 cases per year, computer navigation is cost-effective if it results in a 2.5% reduction in the annual revision rate over a twenty-year period. If a center performs only 25 cases per year, the annual reduction in revision rates must be 13% for computer navigation to be cost-effective.

Conclusion: This analysis demonstrates that computer navigation is not likely to be a cost-effective investment in health care improvement in low volume joint replacement centers, where its benefit is most likely to be realized. However, it may be a cost-effective technology for higher volume joint replacement centers, where the decrease in the rate of knee revision needed to make the investment cost-effective is modest, if improvements in revisions rates with the use of this technology can be realized. This illustrates that hospital volume can have a substantial impact on the cost-effectiveness of new technology in surgery, and this should be carefully considered by any center considering such a large capital investment.