Knee arthroplasty utilization trends from 2010 to 2019

Authors

Samuel I. Fuller, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, George Washington University Hospital, 2300 M St NW, Washington DC 20037, USA.
Jordan S. Cohen, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, 3737 Market St, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Alisa Malyavko, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, George Washington University Hospital, 2300 M St NW, Washington DC 20037, USA. Electronic address: alisamalyavko@gwmail.gwu.edu.
Amil R. Agarwal, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, George Washington University Hospital, 2300 M St NW, Washington DC 20037, USA.
Seth Stake, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, George Washington University Hospital, 2300 M St NW, Washington DC 20037, USA.
Gregory J. Golladay, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health, Box 98053, 1200 E. Broad St., Richmond, VA 23298, USA.
Savyasachi C. Thakkar, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Adult Reconstruction Division, Johns Hopkins University, 10700 Charter Dr, Suite 205, Columbia, MD 21044, USA.

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

10-7-2022

Journal

The Knee

Volume

39

DOI

10.1016/j.knee.2022.09.006

Keywords

Computer Assistance; Partial Knee Arthroplasty; Total Knee Arthroplasty; Trends

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Interest in partial knee arthroplasty procedures including unicompartmental arthroplasty (UKA), patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA), and bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BKA) has increased due to their bone and ligament preservation compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Implant designs, changing thoughts on appropriate indications for partial knee arthroplasty, and availability of navigation also impacted the field over the last decade. The aims of this study were to evaluate trends over the last decade in utilization of 1) partial and total knee arthroplasty; and 2) computer-assistance in knee arthroplasty. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using the PearlDiver database. Patients who underwent PFA, UKA, BKA, and TKA for an indication of osteoarthritis (OA) were identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Trends analysis from 2010 to 2019 was conducted to compare utilization based on procedure type and computer-assistance. Statistical analysis was conducted using Compounded Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) and linear regression. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2019, there was a significant decrease in utilization of PFA (CAGR: -5.73 %; p = 0.011) and BKA (CAGR: -10.49 %; p = 0.013), but no significant difference in that of UKA (p = 0.224) and TKA (p = 0.421). There was a significant increase in the utilization of computer assistance for both UKA (CAGR: +19.81 %; p = 0.002) and TKA (CAGR: +3.90 %; p = 0.038), but there was no significant difference for computer-assisted PFA (p = 0.724) and BKA (p = 0.951). CONCLUSIONS: TKA is still the most common arthroplasty procedure for OA. Decreased utilization of PFA and BKA may be explained by reported failure and revision rates for PFA and BKA compared to TKA.

APA Citation

Fuller, Samuel I.; Cohen, Jordan S.; Malyavko, Alisa; Agarwal, Amil R.; Stake, Seth; Golladay, Gregory J.; and Thakkar, Savyasachi C., "Knee arthroplasty utilization trends from 2010 to 2019" (2022). GW Authored Works. Paper 1806.
https://hsrc.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/gwhpubs/1806

Department

School of Medicine and Health Sciences Student Works