Robot-assisted surgery for orthopaedic procedures: early value assessment

  • Health technology evaluation
  • HTE22
  • Published: 

Register as a stakeholder

Download guidance (PDF)

1 Recommendations

1.1

Six technologies can be used in the NHS during the evidence generation period as options for robot-assisted surgery for knee or hip replacements. The technologies are:

  • ApolloKnee System

  • CORI Surgical System

  • Mako SmartRobotics

  • ROSA Knee Solution

  • SkyWalker Robotic-assisted Technology

  • VELYS Robotic-Assisted Solution.

    These technologies can only be used:

  • if the evidence outlined in the evidence generation plan for robot-assisted surgery for orthopaedic procedures is being generated

  • once they have appropriate regulatory approval including NHS England's Digital Technology Assessment Criteria (DTAC) approval.

1.2

The companies must confirm that agreements are in place to generate the evidence. They should contact NICE annually to confirm that evidence is being generated and analysed as planned. NICE may revise or withdraw the guidance if these conditions are not met.

1.3

At the end of the evidence generation period (3 years), the companies should submit the evidence to NICE in a format that can be used for decision making. NICE will review the evidence and assess if the technology can be routinely adopted in the NHS.

What evidence generation is needed

More evidence needs to be generated on:

  • health-related quality of life, including patient-reported outcome measures

  • immediate consumables and resourcing associated with surgery, including:

    • preoperative CT imaging requirements

    • training time and costs

    • surgical and theatre accessories

    • staffing (number and NHS band)

    • total theatre time and total surgical time

    • volume of procedures per day and

    • implant costs

  • post-surgery treatment and service use including:

    • length of hospital stay

    • readmission rates

    • number of physiotherapy sessions and

    • revision rates (stratified by implant type)

  • characteristics of people having the procedure, such as age, body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists risk score

  • population subgroups, such as people from Southeast Asian backgrounds

  • where in the country the procedures are done.

    The evidence generation plan gives further information on the prioritised evidence gaps and outcomes, ongoing studies and potential real-world data sources. It includes how the evidence gaps could be resolved through real-world evidence studies.

    NHS England and the Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) programme have produced a guide to support implementation of this guidance.

Potential benefits of use in the NHS with evidence generation

  • Access: While conventional orthopaedic surgery is widely available, robot-assisted orthopaedic surgery is currently limited to a small number of hospitals in the UK. If future evidence shows that robot-assisted surgery improves patient outcomes, it could be more widely implemented across the UK. This would give more people the choice of conventional or robot-assisted orthopaedic surgery.

  • System benefit: A key benefit of robot-assisted surgery is the precise positioning of the implant. This helps the surgeon to position and align the implants in the correct position for each person. An individualised approach to surgery may improve patient satisfaction after surgery and reduce the demand for revision surgery.

  • Clinical benefit: Clinical evidence comparing robot-assisted surgery with conventional surgery suggests that improvements in patient-reported outcomes and complications are similar. Implant alignment was consistently more precise with robot-assisted surgery than with conventional surgery. But the committee was uncertain about the best way to measure alignment and if more precise alignment results in better clinical outcomes.

  • Resources: More accurate joint replacement may improve patient satisfaction and shorten recovery time, reducing the need for follow-up appointments with GPs, surgeons and physiotherapists, and the prescription of pain management medicines.

  • Equality: Robot-assisted surgery may improve access to surgery for people who are at higher risk. This includes older people and people with a high body mass index or multimorbidity. People from Southeast Asian backgrounds may also experience greater benefits from robot-assisted surgery for knee replacements because of anatomical differences that can result in poor alignment compared with conventional surgery.

Managing the risk of use in the NHS with evidence generation

  • Training: All members of the surgical team must be trained on each robotic technology that they use, including its safety principles and protocols. There is a surgeon and centre learning curve associated with robot-assisted surgery. Patient outcomes and service efficiency may not be maximised until the end of the learning curve.

  • Costs: Early economic modelling was based on the limited evidence available including utility values with a high degree of uncertainty. Results from the modelling were highly sensitive to the utility values used. For total or partial knee arthroplasty, the results suggest the technologies in this guidance may not be cost effective. For total hip arthroplasty, the CORI and Mako platforms may be cost effective. For a robust economic assessment, more evidence is needed to inform the parameters for each technology. This guidance will be reviewed after the evidence generation period and the recommendations may change. Centres should take this into account when negotiating the length of contracts and licence costs.

  • Patient outcomes: Experts and the identified evidence suggest that adverse events are rare and unlikely to differ between robot-assisted surgery and conventional surgery. But, adverse events should still be captured in future evidence to ensure the safety of robot-assisted surgery in the NHS.

  • Equality: Robot-assisted surgery may not be suitable for some people, including those with conditions affecting joint articulation or, with some technologies, people who are pregnant or have kidney disorders. Healthcare professionals should refer to individual technology instructions for use and use their clinical judgement to determine if robot-assisted surgery or conventional surgery is most appropriate for the individual.

  • Access: Introducing robot-assisted surgery could potentially increase geographic inequalities in the availability of surgery. Regional adoption should be monitored to ensure access to robot-assisted surgery is not limited to people living in central locations where there are high-volume centres. An NHS England robot-assisted surgery steering group has been assembled to address some of these challenges.