BACKGROUND: Surgical robotics has been shown to improve the accuracy of bone preparation and soft tissue balance in unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA). However, although extensive data have emerged with regard to a CT scan-based haptically constrained robotic arm, little is known about the accuracy of a newer alternative, an imageless robotic system. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We assessed the accuracy of a novel imageless semiautonomous freehand robotic sculpting system in performing bone resection and preparation in UKA using cadaveric specimens. METHODS: In this controlled study, we compared the planned and final implant placement in 25 cadaveric specimens undergoing UKA using the new tool. A quantitative analysis was performed to determine the translational, angular, and rotational differences between the planned and achieved positions of the implants. RESULTS: The femoral implant rotational mean error was 1.04° to 1.88° and mean translational error was 0.72 to 1.29 mm across the three planes. The tibial implant rotational mean error was 1.48° to 1.98° and the mean translational error was 0.79 to 1.27 mm across the three planes. CONCLUSIONS: The image-free robotic sculpting tool achieved accurate implementation of the surgical plan with small errors in implant placement. The next step will be to determine whether accurate implant placement translates into a clinical and functional benefit for the patient.
BACKGROUND: Surgical robotics has been shown to improve the accuracy of bone preparation and soft tissue balance in unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA). However, although extensive data have emerged with regard to a CT scan-based haptically constrained robotic arm, little is known about the accuracy of a newer alternative, an imageless robotic system. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We assessed the accuracy of a novel imageless semiautonomous freehand robotic sculpting system in performing bone resection and preparation in UKA using cadaveric specimens. METHODS: In this controlled study, we compared the planned and final implant placement in 25 cadaveric specimens undergoing UKA using the new tool. A quantitative analysis was performed to determine the translational, angular, and rotational differences between the planned and achieved positions of the implants. RESULTS: The femoral implant rotational mean error was 1.04° to 1.88° and mean translational error was 0.72 to 1.29 mm across the three planes. The tibial implant rotational mean error was 1.48° to 1.98° and the mean translational error was 0.79 to 1.27 mm across the three planes. CONCLUSIONS: The image-free robotic sculpting tool achieved accurate implementation of the surgical plan with small errors in implant placement. The next step will be to determine whether accurate implant placement translates into a clinical and functional benefit for the patient.
Authors: Terence J Gioe; Kathleen K Killeen; Daniel P Hoeffel; Jack M Bert; Thomas K Comfort; Karen Scheltema; Susan Mehle; Katherine Grimm Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.176
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: Ming Han Lincoln Liow; Graham Seow-Hng Goh; Merng Koon Wong; Pak Lin Chin; Darren Keng-Jin Tay; Seng-Jin Yeo Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-03-26 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Alexander H Jinnah; Marco A Augart; Daniel L Lara; Riyaz H Jinnah; Gary G Poehling; Chukwuweike U Gwam; Johannes F Plate Journal: Surg Technol Int Date: 2018-06-01