Please check your email for the verification action. You may continue to use the site and you are now logged in, but you will not be able to return to the site in future until you confirm your email address.
Aims. Implantwaste 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 implantwaste 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 wastedimplants compared to navigation-guided and conventional manual THA; 2) determine the proportion of wastedimplants by implant type; and 3) examine the effects of surgeon experience on rates of implantwaste 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 implantwaste during primary THA. Results. Robotic-assisted THA resulted in a lower proportion (1.5%) of implantwaste 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 implantwaste 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 implantwaste rates vary depending on the type of technology used intraoperatively. Future studies on implantwaste 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