The Cost of Robot-assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty: Comparing Safety and Hospital Charges to Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Utilization of robotic assistance is increasing for total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, few studies have directly examined the efficacy of this technique at reducing complications. This research aims to compare the rates of perioperative complications of robotic-assisted THA (RA-THA) with conventional THA (C-THA). METHODS: This study screened more than 35 million hospital discharges between 2010 to 2014 using the National Inpatient Sample. The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) procedure codes were used to identify 292,836 patients who underwent C-THA (ICD 81.51) and 946 patients who underwent RA-THA (ICD 81.51 and ICD 17.41, 17.49). Perioperative complications were identified using ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes. Patient mortality was determined using the Uniform Bill patient disposition. The RA-THA cohort was statistically matched 1:1 to C-THA about patient age, sex, race, comorbidities, hospital type, and calendar year. Mean cost and length of stay (LOS) for each cohort were calculated and compared using the Kruskal-Wallis H test. Logistic regression was used to compare the risks of major and minor complications between the cohorts. RESULTS: We matched 758 (80.13%) RA-THA patients with 758 patients who underwent C-THA. No patient in our sample died. When compared with the conventional group, multivariate analysis revealed that the risk of major complications was similar in RA-THA patients (odds ratio = 0.698, 95% confidence interval = 0.282 to 1.727). In addition, although the rate of minor complications was higher in the RA-THA cohort (21.6% versus 12.5%, P = 0.004), no difference was observed on multivariate analysis (odds ratio = 1.248, 95% confidence interval = 0.852 to 1.829). The average inpatient hospital cost of a RA-THA was $20,046 (SD = 6,165) compared with $18,258 (SD = 6,147) for C-THA (P < 0.001). The average LOS was for RA-THA was 2.69 days (SD = 1.25) compared with 2.82 days for C-THA (SD = 1.18, P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: In a statistically matched cohort, the risk of perioperative complication in patients who underwent RA-THA versus C-THA patients were similar. However, RA-THA was costlier despite shorter LOS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".