ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Fluoroscopic Navigation in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Compared With Robotic or Manual Techniques.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnabling technologies used in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), including computer-assisted fluoroscopic navigation (cTHA) and robotic-assisted THA (rTHA), aim to optimize the accuracy and precision of surgery to improve patient outcomes. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of cTHA compared with manual THA (mTHA) and rTHA for primary THA in the United States, from an "all-payer" perspective.
methodsA Markov state-transition model was developed to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life year gains over a 1-year time horizon. Inputs were primarily derived from published literature that analyzed data from an electronic healthcare database between 2016 and 2021. The model population consisted of patients undergoing primary THA, with a mean age of 66 years. The model included six health states: post-THA, readmission without revision, readmission with revision, post-readmission, post-revision, and death. Sensitivity analyses, including deterministic, probabilistic, and scenario analyses, were conducted to test the robustness of the results.
resultscTHA demonstrated cost savings of $1595 compared with rTHA and $949 compared with mTHA. Savings with cTHA were primarily due to shorter length of stay and fewer readmissions with or without revision. cTHA also showed minor quality-adjusted life year gains of 0.0013 and 0.0009 versus rTHA and mTHA, respectively. These findings establish cTHA as the cost-effective strategy, combining lower costs with slightly improved health outcomes. Results remained robust across all sensitivity analyses.
conclusionscTHA is the most cost-effective technique for primary THA in the United States, compared with both rTHA and mTHA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.