Aims. The current study aimed to compare robotic arm-assisted (RA-THA), computer-assisted (CA-THA), and manual (M-THA) total hip arthroplasty regarding in-hospital metrics including length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, in-hospital complications, and cost of RA-THA versus M-THA and CA-THA versus M-THA, as well as trends in use and uptake over a ten-year period, and future projections of uptake and use of RA-THA and CA-THA. Methods. The National Inpatient Sample was queried for primary THAs (2008 to 2017) which were categorized into RA-THA, CA-THA, and M-THA. Past and projected use, demographic characteristics distribution, income, type of insurance, location, and healthcare setting were compared among the three cohorts. In-hospital complications, LOS, discharge disposition, and in-hospital costs were compared between propensity score-matched cohorts of M-THA versus RA-THA and M-THA versus CA-THA to adjust for baseline characteristics and comorbidities. Results. RA-THA and CA-THA did not exhibit any clinically meaningful reduction in mean LOS (RA-THA 2.2 days (SD 1.4) vs 2.3 days (SD 1.8); p < 0.001, and CA-THA 2.5 days (SD 1.9) vs 2.7 days (SD 2.3); p < 0.001, respectively) compared to their respective propensity score-matched M-THA cohorts. RA-THA, but not CA-THA, had similar non-home discharge rates to M-THA (RA-THA 17.4% vs 18.5%; p = 0.205, and 18.7% vs 24.9%; p < 0.001, respectively). Implant-related mechanical complications were lower in RA-THA (RA-THA 0.5% vs M-THA 3.1%; p < 0.001, and CA-THA 1.2% vs M-THA 2.2%; p < 0.001), which was associated with a significantly lower in-hospital dislocation (RA-THA 0.1% vs M-THA 0.8%; p < 0.001). Both RA-THA and CA-THA demonstrated higher mean higher index in-hospital costs (RA-THA $18,416 (SD $8,048) vs M-THA $17,266 (SD $8,396); p < 0.001, and CA-THA $20,295 (SD $8,975) vs M-THA $18,624 (SD $9,226); p < 0.001, respectively).
The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between reason for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and outcomes in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). We reviewed a prospective cohort of 647 patients undergoing full or partial rTHA at a single high-volume centre with a minimum of two years’ follow-up. The reasons for revision were classified as: infection; aseptic loosening; dislocation; structural failure; and painful THA for other reasons. PROMs (modified Oxford Hip Score (mOHS), EuroQol five-dimension three-level health questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) score, and visual analogue scales for pain during rest and activity), complication rates, and failure rates were compared among the groups.Aims
Methods
To determine mortality risk after first revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF), and to compare this to mortality risk after primary and first revision THA for other common indications. The study cohort consisted of THAs recorded in the National Joint Registry between 2003 and 2015, linked to national mortality data. First revision THAs for PFF, infection, dislocation, and aseptic loosening were identified. We used a flexible parametric model to estimate the cumulative incidence function of death at 90 days, one year, and five years following first revision THA and primary THA, in the presence of further revision as a competing risk. Analysis covariates were age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade.Aims
Methods
