Abstract
Aims
Postoperative length of stay (LOS) and discharge dispositions following arthroplasty can be used as surrogate measurements for improvements in patients’ pathways and costs. With the increasing use of robotic technology in arthroplasty, it is important to assess its impact on LOS. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with decreased LOS following robotic arm-assisted total hip arthroplasty (RO THA) compared with the conventional technique (CO THA).
Methods
This large-scale, single-institution study included 1,607 patients of any age who underwent 1,732 primary THAs for any indication between May 2019 and January 2023. The data which were collected included the demographics of the patients, LOS, type of anaesthetic, the need for treatment in a post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU), readmission within 30 days, and discharge disposition. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify factors and the characteristics of patients which were associated with delayed discharge.
Results
The multivariate model identified that age, female sex, admission into a PACU, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade > II, and CO THA were associated with a significantly higher risk of a LOS of > two days. The median LOS was 54 hours (interquartile range (IQR) 34 to 78) in the RO THA group compared with 60 hours (IQR 51 to 100) in the CO THA group (p < 0.001). The discharge dispositions were comparable between the two groups. A higher proportion of patients undergoing CO THA required PACU admission postoperatively, although without reaching statistical significance (7.2% vs 5.2%, p = 0.238).
Conclusion
We found that among other baseline characteristics and comorbidities, RO THA was associated with a significantly shorter LOS, with no difference in discharge destination. With the increasing demand for THA, these findings suggest that robotic assistance in THA could reduce costs. However, randomized controlled trials are required to investigate the cost-effectiveness of this technology.
Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3 Supple A):24–30.
