Robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: preoperative planning and surgical technique.

The goals of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) are to be patient-specific, minimally invasive, and quantitative. CAS can involve preoperative imaging and planning, intraoperative execution, and postoperative evaluation. Ideally, these components are integrated such that sophisticated diagnostic technologies are used to inform a patient-specific surgical plan. A recently developed CAS/robotic system has the potential to improve alignment in and results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. This new robot is "semiactive"; that is, the surgeon retains ultimate control of the procedure while benefiting from robotic guidance within target zones and boundaries. Surgeons who use the robotic arm-assisted technique described in this article can prepare and then precisely execute a patient-specific computed-tomography-based operative plan. The surgical field is predefined, and the active constraints used by the robotic arm eliminate inadvertent deviation outside this field, thus minimizing iatrogenic morbidity and maximizing bone preservation. In this article, we detail the preoperative planning and intraoperative technique for robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

[1]  Scott A. Banks,et al.  Comparing in vivo kinematics of anterior cruciate-retaining and posterior cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty , 2006, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[2]  M. W. Roche,et al.  ACCURACY OF ROBOTICALLY ASSISTED UKA , 2010 .

[3]  R Michael Meneghini,et al.  Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leading to revision. , 2008, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[4]  J. Jenny,et al.  The Rationale for Navigated Minimally Invasive Unicompartmental Knee Replacement , 2007, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[5]  D. Fisher,et al.  Implant position in knee surgery: a comparison of minimally invasive, open unicompartmental, and total knee arthroplasty. , 2003, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[6]  D. Ammeen,et al.  The effect of alignment of the knee on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[7]  M Jakopec,et al.  Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective, randomised controlled study of the acrobot system. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[8]  P. Müller,et al.  Influence of minimally invasive surgery on implant positioning and the functional outcome for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. , 2004, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[9]  Gerard A Engh,et al.  Factors associated with the loss of thickness of polyethylene tibial bearings after knee arthroplasty. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[10]  Repicci Ja,et al.  Minimally invasive surgical technique for unicondylar knee arthroplasty. , 1999 .

[11]  Benjamin J. Fregly,et al.  Comparing in vivo kinematics of unicondylar and bi-unicondylar knee replacements , 2005, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[12]  C. Colwell,et al.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (alias uni-knee). An overview with nursing implications. , 2004, Orthopedic nursing.

[13]  ONE YEAR OUTCOMES OF ROBOTICALLY GUIDED UKA , 2010 .

[14]  Gerard A Engh,et al.  Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty. , 2006, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[15]  M. A. Conditt,et al.  EARLY CLINICAL SUCCESS OF NOVEL TACTILE GUIDED UKA TECHNIQUE , 2010 .

[16]  M. A. Conditt,et al.  ROBOTICALLY ASSISTED UKA IS MORE ACCURATE THAN MANUALLY INSTRUMENTED UKA , 2010 .

[17]  P. Walker,et al.  Retrospective analysis of total knee arthroplasty cases for visual, histological, and clinical eligibility of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. , 2011, The Journal of arthroplasty.