Aims. Implant waste during total hip arthroplasty (THA) represents a significant cost to the USA healthcare system. While studies have explored methods to improve THA cost-effectiveness, the literature comparing the proportions of implant waste by intraoperative technology used during THA is limited. The aims of this study were to: 1) examine whether the use of enabling technologies during THA results in a smaller proportion of wasted implants compared to navigation-guided and conventional manual THA; 2) determine the proportion of wasted implants by implant type; and 3) examine the effects of surgeon experience on rates of implant waste by technology used. Methods. We identified 104,420 implants either implanted or wasted during 18,329 primary THAs performed on 16,724 patients between January 2018 and June 2022 at our institution. THAs were separated by technology used: robotic-assisted (n = 4,171), imageless navigation (n = 6,887), and manual (n = 7,721). The primary outcome of interest was the rate of implant waste during primary THA. Results. Robotic-assisted THA resulted in a lower proportion (1.5%) of implant waste compared to navigation-guided THA (2.0%) and manual THA (1.9%) (all p < 0.001). Both navigated and manual THA were more likely to waste acetabular shells (odds ratio (OR) 4.5 vs 3.1) and polyethylene liners (OR 2.2 vs 2.0) compared to robotic-assisted THA after adjusting for demographic and perioperative factors, such as surgeon experience (p < 0.001). While implant waste decreased with increasing experience for procedures performed manually (p < 0.001) or with navigation (p < 0.001), waste rates for robotic-assisted THA did not differ based on surgical experience. Conclusion. Robotic-assisted THAs wasted a smaller proportion of acetabular shells and polyethylene liners than navigation-guided and manual THAs. Individual implant waste rates vary depending on the type of technology used intraoperatively. Future studies on implant waste during THA should examine reasons for non-implantation in order to better understand and develop methods for cost-saving. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):715–720

INTRODUCTION. Wasted implants represent both an increased risk and cost to our healthcare system. In our institution, a sterilely packaged implant that is opened and not implanted is wasted in one out of 20 primary total knee replacement procedures. The cost of these wasted implants exceeds $1 million per year. We propose the introduction of a novel, computer based, e.Label and compatibility system to reduce implant-related medical errors and waste in total knee arthroplasty. We hypothesize that the implementation of this system will help reduce medical errors and wasted implants by improving and standardizing the visual markers and by ensuring that parts are compatible so that implant mismatches and inappropriate laterality are prevented. METHODS. A software program was implemented which creates an e.Label for all components (Figure 1) and checks imbedded, manufacturer provided, compatibility charts to ensure that parts are of appropriate laterality, and are compatible with each other. Upon implementation, the program was studied prospectively for seven months and compared to a retrospective cohort in regards to number, type, and cost of wasted implants. Critical errors that were detected were also recorded. RESULTS. During the retrospective period there were 83 wasted implants in 1450 surgeries, or an incidence of 5.7%. After implementation of the computer based system, there were two wasted implant in 244 surgeries performed by the study physicians, or an incidence of 0.8% (Figure 2). One critical medical error was identified and prevented during the study period (Figure 3). The annualized cost savings from this decrease in wasted implants was over $200,000 among our six study surgeons. CONCLUSION. The introduction of this system was able to prevent at least one serious medical error, while dramatically decreasing the number and cost of wasted implants in our institution. Implementation on a larger scale may provide potential for safer, more efficient, and more cost-effective orthopaedic care

Purpose: Many strategies have been reported for decreasing the cost of orthopaedic procedures, including negotiating lower prices with manufacturers and using lower-cost generic implants, but prosthetic waste has not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to characterize the present and potential future cost of intra-operative waste of hip and knee implants. Method: A regional prospective assessment of implant waste was performed from January 2007 to June 2008, evaluating the incidence and reasons for component waste, the cost of the wasted implants, and where the cost was absorbed (hospital or manufacturer). Using published data on nationwide arthroplasty volumes, the results were extrapolated to the whole of the United States. Finally, based on peer-reviewed estimates of nationwide arthroplasty volumes for the next 20 years, a projection was made about the future cost burden of implant waste. Results: Implant waste occurred in 79 of 3443 recorded procedures (2%), with the surgeon bearing primary responsibility in 73% of occurrences. The annualized waste cost was $109,295.35, with 67% absorbed by the hospital. When extrapolated to the whole of the United States, the annual cost to hospitals of hip and knee prosthetic waste is $36,019,000, and is estimated to rise to $112,033,000 in current dollars by the year 2030. Conclusion: This study discovered a notable incidence of intra-operative hip and knee implant waste, with the majority of cases attributed to the surgeon, and representing an important additional cost burden on hospitals. With arthroplasty rates projected to increase markedly over the next twenty years, this waste represents a potentially noteworthy target for educational programs and other cost containment measures in orthopaedic surgery