Literature DB >> 30112739

Does the Robotic Arm and Preoperative CT Planning Help with 3D Intraoperative Total Knee Arthroplasty Planning?

Robert C Marchand1, Nipun Sodhi2, Manoshi Bhowmik-Stoker3, Laura Scholl3, Caitlin Condrey1, Anton Khlopas4, Assem A Sultan2, Jared M Newman5, Michael A Mont2.   

Abstract

Although several studies highlight the advantages of robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA), few investigate its intraoperative outcome. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the RA-TKA's ability to assist with intraoperative correction of: (1) flexion and (2) extension gaps, as well as its ability to (3) accurately predict implant sizes. Additionally, in this RA-TKA cohort, length of stay, complications, and readmissions were assessed. A total of 335 patients who underwent RA-TKA were included. The robotic software virtually measured the intraoperative prebone cut extension and flexion gaps. Differences in medial versus lateral prebone cut extension and flexion gaps were calculated. A total of 155 patients (46%) had an extension gap difference of between -2 and 2 mm (mean, -0.3 mm), while 119 patients (36%) had a flexion gap difference of between -2 and 2 mm (mean, -0.6 mm). Postbone cut differences in medial versus lateral flexion and extension gaps were measured. Balanced knees were considered to have a medial and lateral flexion gap difference within 2 mm. The robot-predicted implant size was also compared with the final implant size. Additionally, lengths of stay, complications, and readmissions were assessed. All patients achieved a postbone cut extension gap difference between -1 and 1 mm (mean, -0.1 mm). A total of 332 patients (99%) achieved a postbone cut flexion gap difference of between -2 and 2 mm (mean, 0 mm). For 98% of prostheses, the robotic software predicted within 1 implant size the actual tibial or femoral implant size used.The mean length of stay was found to be 2 days. No patients suffered from superficial skin infection, pin site infections or fractures, soft tissue damage, and no robotic cases were converted to manual TKA due to intraoperative complications. A total of 8 patients (2.2%) were readmitted; however, none were directly related to robotic use. The robotic software and use of a preoperative computed tomography (CT) substantially helped with intraoperative planning and accurate prediction of implant sizes. Therefore, based on the results of this study, the RA-TKA device does, in fact, provide considerable intraoperative assistance. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30112739     DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1668122

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Knee Surg        ISSN: 1538-8506            Impact factor:   2.757


  13 in total

1.  Computer-Assisted Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery.

Authors:  Timo Stübig; Henning Windhagen; Christian Krettek; Max Ettinger
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 5.594

2.  Primum non nocere: robots and spinal surgery.

Authors:  Corinna C Zygourakis; Nicholas Theodore
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-12

3.  A comparison of peri-operative outcomes between elective and non-elective total hip arthroplasties.

Authors:  Hiba K Anis; Nipun Sodhi; Marine Coste; Joseph O Ehiorobo; Jared M Newman; Luke J Garbarino; Peter Gold; Benjamin Freund; Nicolas Piuzzi; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-02

4.  Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty is comparable to conventional total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  James Randolph Onggo; Jason Derry Onggo; Richard De Steiger; Raphael Hau
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-06-14       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 5.  Clinical outcomes associated with robotic and computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty: a machine learning-augmented systematic review.

Authors:  Quinlan D Buchlak; Joe Clair; Nazanin Esmaili; Arshad Barmare; Siva Chandrasekaran
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2021-06-25

6.  Less iatrogenic soft-tissue damage utilizing robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty when compared with a manual approach: A blinded assessment.

Authors:  Emily L Hampp; Nipun Sodhi; Laura Scholl; Matthew E Deren; Zachary Yenna; Geoffrey Westrich; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2019-11-02       Impact factor: 5.853

7.  Robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty improves preoperative planning and intraoperative decision-making.

Authors:  Xufeng Wan; Qiang Su; Duan Wang; Mingcheng Yuan; Yahao Lai; Hong Xu; Zongke Zhou
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 8.  Robot-Assisted Image-Guided Interventions.

Authors:  Michael Unger; Johann Berger; Andreas Melzer
Journal:  Front Robot AI       Date:  2021-07-12

Review 9.  A clinical review of robotic navigation in total knee arthroplasty: historical systems to modern design.

Authors:  Ahmed Siddiqi; Timothy Horan; Robert M Molloy; Michael R Bloomfield; Preetesh D Patel; Nicolas S Piuzzi
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2021-04-01

Review 10.  The current state of robotics in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jean-Pierre St Mart; En Lin Goh
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2021-04-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.