Robotic systems in orthopaedic surgery.

Robots have been used in surgery since the late 1980s. Orthopaedic surgery began to incorporate robotic technology in 1992, with the introduction of ROBODOC, for the planning and performance of total hip replacement. The use of robotic systems has subsequently increased, with promising short-term radiological outcomes when compared with traditional orthopaedic procedures. Robotic systems can be classified into two categories: autonomous and haptic (or surgeon-guided). Passive surgery systems, which represent a third type of technology, have also been adopted recently by orthopaedic surgeons. While autonomous systems have fallen out of favour, tactile systems with technological improvements have become widely used. Specifically, the use of tactile and passive robotic systems in unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) has addressed some of the historical mechanisms of failure of non-robotic UKR. These systems assist with increasing the accuracy of the alignment of the components and produce more consistent ligament balance. Short-term improvements in clinical and radiological outcomes have increased the popularity of robot-assisted UKR. Robot-assisted orthopaedic surgery has the potential for improving surgical outcomes. We discuss the different types of robotic systems available for use in orthopaedics and consider the indication, contraindications and limitations of these technologies.

[1]  N. Bellamy,et al.  Validation study of WOMAC : a health status instrument for measuring clinically-important patient-relevant outcomes following total hip or knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis , 1988 .

[2]  L. Dorr,et al.  Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. , 1989, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[3]  J. Jenny,et al.  Unicompartmental knee prosthesis implantation with a non-image-based navigation system: rationale, technique, case-control comparative study with a conventional instrumented implantation , 2002, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[4]  [CT-based and CT-free navigation in knee prosthesis implantation. Results of a prospective study]. , 2003, Der Unfallchirurg.

[5]  D J Beard,et al.  Minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: functional results at 1 year and the effect of surgical inexperience. , 2004, The Knee.

[6]  D. Simpson,et al.  Blood loss after total knee replacement: effects of computer-assisted surgery. , 2005, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[7]  Wolfhart Puhl,et al.  Leg axis after computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized trial comparing computer-navigated and manual implantation. , 2005, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[8]  R. Miehlke,et al.  Advanced navigation planning including soft tissue management. , 2005, Orthopedics.

[9]  P Cinquin,et al.  Praxiteles: a miniature bone‐mounted robot for minimal access total knee arthroplasty , 2005, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[10]  Steffen Kohler,et al.  Consistency of implantation of a total knee arthroplasty with a non-image-based navigation system: a case-control study of 235 cases compared with 235 conventionally implanted prostheses. , 2005, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[11]  D. Simpson,et al.  Limb alignment in computer-assisted minimally-invasive unicompartmental knee replacement. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[12]  B B Seedhom,et al.  Computer-assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Patient-specific Templating , 2006, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[13]  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.

[14]  B. Jaramaz,et al.  MBARS: Mini Bone Attached Robotic System for Joint Arthroplasty , 2006, The First IEEE/RAS-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, 2006. BioRob 2006..

[15]  A. Schulz,et al.  Results of total hip replacement using the Robodoc surgical assistant system: clinical outcome and evaluation of complications for 97 procedures , 2007, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[16]  B L Davies,et al.  Robotic control in knee joint replacement surgery , 2007, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[17]  F. Wolf,et al.  Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[18]  Christian Hoser,et al.  Improved accuracy of component alignment with the implementation of image-free navigation in total knee arthroplasty , 2008, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[19]  W. Bargar,et al.  Robots in orthopaedic surgery: past, present, and future. , 2007, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[20]  T. Fehring,et al.  Meta-analysis of alignment outcomes in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery. , 2007, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[21]  Pat Patterson Lateral violence: why it's serious and what OR managers can do. , 2007, OR manager.

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

[23]  Judith M Mathias Orthopedic navigation: questions about long-term results and costs. , 2007, OR manager.

[24]  D W Murray,et al.  The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[25]  Sang Eun Park,et al.  Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional manual implantation of a primary total knee arthroplasty. , 2007, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[26]  K. Bozic,et al.  The cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[27]  Peter M Bonutti,et al.  Navigation Did Not Improve the Precision of Minimally Invasive Knee Arthroplasty , 2008, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[28]  E. Cáceres,et al.  Computer-assisted surgery can reduce blood loss after total knee arthroplasty , 2009, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[29]  T P Ng,et al.  Computer Navigation Did Not Improve Alignment in a Lower-volume Total Knee Practice , 2008, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[30]  Yogeesh D. Kamat,et al.  Does computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty improve patient outcome at midterm follow-up? , 2009, International Orthopaedics.

[31]  F Krummenauer,et al.  Computer-assisted and conventional total knee replacement: a comparative, prospective, randomised study with radiological and CT evaluation. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[32]  Daniel Kendoff,et al.  Robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: preoperative planning and surgical technique. , 2009, American journal of orthopedics.

[33]  J. Lonner Robotic Arm–Assisted Unicompartmental Arthroplasty , 2009 .

[34]  V. Musahl,et al.  Perioperative management of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using the MAKO robotic arm system (MAKOplasty). , 2009, American journal of orthopedics.

[35]  Flexion-extension gaps balanced using navigation assistance in TKA. , 2009, Orthopedics.

[36]  Introduction: robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. , 2009, American journal of orthopedics.

[37]  Haptic robotics enable a systems approach to design of a minimally invasive modular knee arthroplasty. , 2009, American journal of orthopedics.

[38]  Daniel Kendoff,et al.  Perspectives on computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery: movement toward quantitative orthopaedic surgery. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[39]  Thomas M Coon,et al.  Integrating robotic technology into the operating room. , 2009, American journal of orthopedics.

[40]  Michael Conditt,et al.  Technology and cost-effectiveness in knee arthroplasty: computer navigation and robotics. , 2009, American journal of orthopedics.

[41]  Jess H Lonner,et al.  Indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and rationale for robotic arm-assisted technology. , 2009, American journal of orthopedics.

[42]  M. Hardenbrook,et al.  Clinical Acceptance and Accuracy Assessment of Spinal Implants Guided With SpineAssist Surgical Robot: Retrospective Study , 2010, Spine.

[43]  Lawrence Joseph,et al.  Imageless computer assisted versus conventional total knee replacement. A Bayesian meta-analysis of 23 comparative studies , 2011, International Orthopaedics.

[44]  P. O'loughlin,et al.  Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. , 2010, The Journal of arthroplasty.

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