Registration and Immobilization in Robot-Assisted Surgery

Lea, Jeremy; Watkins, Dane; Mills, Aaron; Peshkin, Michael A.; Kienzle, T.; Stulberg, S. David

doi:10.3109/10929089509106318

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In PD, which has little effect on the mechanical axis definition, the tracker mean was 1.1 mm distal (95% CI 0.51 to 1.7, P < 0.001). The motion of the hip tracker relative to the ilium is comparable to motion found by Lea [8] for a pelvis immobilizer. The directions of motion are as expected, with a medial shift particularly in flexion and adduction due to the thigh contacting the rod passing through the crotch.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

Accuracy and Repeatability of Joint Centre Location in Computer-Assisted Knee Surgery

Inkpen

Hodgson

1999

Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI’99

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To properly align knee prostheses, we must accurately define the mechanical axis which joins the hip and ankle centres. Current computerassisted techniques rely on markers pinned not only to the distal femur and proximal tibia, but also to the pelvis and calcaneus, thereby increasing pain and the risk of infection. To eliminate these pins remote from the knee, we are designing non-invasive "trackers" that are strapped to the patient's pelvis and foot and are insensitive to skin motion. We mounted our prototype trackers on a fresh cadaver alongside conventional bone pin markers in the pelvis and calcaneus, and located the hip and ankle centres 30 times. We then dissected out and digitized the femoral head. Results from the hip tracker were excellent, the mean centre being within 0.2 mm (ML) and 1.3 mm (AP) of the physical centre of the femoral head (all results at 95% confidence limit). Compared to the digitized centre, the hip tracker introduces mechanical axis error of less than 0.07° (frontal plane) and 0.25 ° (sagittal plane) 95% of the time, while the pelvic bone pin introduces 0.03° (frontal) and 0.14° (sagittal) error. Results were not as good at the ankle: although there was no significant difference in mean ankle centre location between the foot tracker and the calcaneus bone pin (P = 0.09 in ML, P = 0.08 in AP), both means differed from the anatomical ankle centre (digitized midpoint between malleoli) by 5-7 mm, a mechanical axis difference of ~0.5°. Compared to the digitized mechanical axis, overall axis definition will be within 1.2° (frontal) and 0.9° (sagittal) using bone pins and 1.3° (frontal) and 2.0° (sagittal) using non-invasive trackers 95% of the time. For both methods, almost all error arises from bias and lack of precision at the ankle. We conclude that bone pins at the hip are unnecessary for subdegree accuracy, but that better methods of locating the ankle centre should be investigated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

Accuracy and Repeatability of Joint Centre Location in Computer-Assisted Knee Surgery

Inkpen

Hodgson

1999

Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI’99

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…37 Its center of rotation is defined as the common reference point for the pelvic and femoral COSs. In the pelvis, this point is located at the center of the acetabulum (AC), and in the femur at the center of the femoral head (Fig.…”

Section: Computation Of Overall Changes Of Leg Length and Lateralizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A hybrid CT-free navigation system for total hip arthroplasty

Zheng

Marx

Langlotz

et al. 2002

Comput. Aided Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Surgical robots are voluminous and occupy too much of the operating room space [5], [8]. Registration and immobilization are two key issues in robot assisted surgery [9]. Also, commercial surgical robots are extremely costly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%