BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) with rigid bone fixation "can significantly improve implant placement and leg alignment. The aim of this cadaveric study was to determine whether the use of robotic systems with dynamic bone tracking would provide more accurate UKA implant positioning compared to the conventional manual technique. METHODS: Three-dimensional CT-based preoperative plans were created to determine the desired position and orientation for the tibial and femoral components. For each pair of cadaver knees, UKA was performed using traditional instrumentation on the left side and using a haptic robotic system on the right side. Postoperative CT scans were obtained and 3D-to-3D iterative closest point registration was performed. Implant position and orientation were compared to the preoperative plan. RESULTS: Surgical RMS errors for femoral component placement were within 1.9 mm and 3.7° in all directions of the planned implant position for the robotic group, while RMS errors for the manual group were within 5.4mm and 10.2°. Average RMS errors for tibial component placement were within 1.4mm and 5.0° in all directions for the robotic group; while, for the manual group, RMS errors were within 5.7 mm and 19.2°. CONCLUSIONS: UKA was more precise using a semiactive robotic system with dynamic bone tracking technology compared to the manual technique.
BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) with rigid bone fixation "can significantly improve implant placement and leg alignment. The aim of this cadaveric study was to determine whether the use of robotic systems with dynamic bone tracking would provide more accurate UKA implant positioning compared to the conventional manual technique. METHODS: Three-dimensional CT-based preoperative plans were created to determine the desired position and orientation for the tibial and femoral components. For each pair of cadaver knees, UKA was performed using traditional instrumentation on the left side and using a haptic robotic system on the right side. Postoperative CT scans were obtained and 3D-to-3D iterative closest point registration was performed. Implant position and orientation were compared to the preoperative plan. RESULTS: Surgical RMS errors for femoral component placement were within 1.9 mm and 3.7° in all directions of the planned implant position for the robotic group, while RMS errors for the manual group were within 5.4mm and 10.2°. Average RMS errors for tibial component placement were within 1.4mm and 5.0° in all directions for the robotic group; while, for the manual group, RMS errors were within 5.7 mm and 19.2°. CONCLUSIONS: UKA was more precise using a semiactive robotic system with dynamic bone tracking technology compared to the manual technique.
Authors: Saker Khamaisy; Hendrik A Zuiderbaan; Ran Thein; Brian P Gladnick; Andrew D Pearle Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Andrew D Pearle; Jelle P van der List; Lily Lee; Thomas M Coon; Todd A Borus; Martin W Roche Journal: Knee Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Ali Mofidi; Johannes F Plate; Bo Lu; Michael A Conditt; Jason E Lang; Gary G Poehling; Riyaz H Jinnah Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Jelle P van der List; Harshvardhan Chawla; Leo Joskowicz; Andrew D Pearle Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Gary Tran; Lafi S Khalil; Allen Wrubel; Chad L Klochko; Jason J Davis; Steven B Soliman Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2020-11-03 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Johannes F Plate; Marco A Augart; Thorsten M Seyler; Daniel N Bracey; Aneitra Hoggard; Michael Akbar; Riyaz H Jinnah; Gary G Poehling Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-04-12 Impact factor: 4.342