Active-Constraint Robotics for Surgery

The concepts and benefits of hands-on robotic surgery and active-constraint robotics are introduced. The argument is made for systems to be cost effective and simple in order that they can be justified for a large range of surgical procedures. The case is made for robotic systems to have a clear justification, with benefits compared to those from cheaper navigation systems. The need to have robust systems, that require little surgical training and no technical presence in the operating room, is also discussed. An active constraint medical robot, the Acrobot System, is described together with its use in a prospective randomized controlled trial of unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA), comparing the performance of the Acrobot System with conventional surgery. Twenty-eight patients awaiting UKA were randomly allocated to have the operation performed conventionally or with the assistance of the Acrobot. The results of the trial are presented together with a discussion of the need for measures of accuracy to be introduced so that the efficacy of the robotic surgery can be immediately identified, rather than having to wait for a number of years before long-term clinical improvements can be demonstrated

[1]  J W Goodfellow,et al.  The Oxford Knee for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. The first 103 cases. , 1988, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[2]  M. Janeček,et al.  Total knee arthroplasty implanted with and without kinematic navigation , 2003, International Orthopaedics.

[3]  P Cartier,et al.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery. 10-year minimum follow-up period. , 1996, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[4]  Alon Wolf,et al.  Feasibility Study of a Mini, Bone-Attached, Robotic System for Spinal Operations: Analysis and Experiments , 2004, Spine.

[5]  M. S. Nathan,et al.  The Probot—an active robot for prostate resection , 1997, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[6]  R Y Liow,et al.  The reliability of the American Knee Society Score , 2000, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[7]  Brian L. Davies,et al.  The Acrobot system for total knee replacement , 2003, Ind. Robot.

[8]  Alon Wolf,et al.  MBARS: mini bone‐attached robotic system for joint arthroplasty , 2005 .

[9]  Cyril Boeri,et al.  Accuracy of implantation of a unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty with 2 different instrumentations: a case-controlled comparative study. , 2002, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[10]  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.

[11]  Ulrich Clemens,et al.  Experience using the latest OrthoPilot TKA software: a comparative study. , 2003, Surgical technology international.

[12]  P. Lotke,et al.  Influence of positioning of prosthesis in total knee replacement. , 1977, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[13]  S. J. Harris,et al.  The first clinical application of a "hands-on" robotic knee surgery system. , 2001, Computer aided surgery : official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery.

[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]  R. Kober,et al.  Technique and first clinical results of robot-assisted total knee replacement. , 2002, The Knee.