Robotic-assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Tamam, Cüneyt; Poehling, Gary G.

doi:10.1097/jsa.0000000000000043

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With the development and updating of medical imaging and computer technologies, computer‐assisted orthopaedic surgery (CAOS) has been widely used in joint surgery, spine surgery, and traumatic orthopaedics. The stereotactic technique based on X‐ray or 3‐D CT images can assist doctors to perform more accurate surgical planning, improve accuracy, avoid the errors of manual operation, and reduce radiation exposure. With the continuous development and functional improvement of various orthopaedic robot systems, robot‐assisted minimally invasive orthopaedic surgery has been accepted by an increasing number of orthopaedic doctors and promoted in clinical practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robot‐assisted Percutaneous Cannulated Screw Fixation of Femoral Neck Fractures: Preliminary Clinical Results

Duan

Liu

et al. 2019

Orthopaedic Surgery

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess the clinical efficacy of TiRobot‐assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation in the treatment of femoral neck fractures. Methods From September 2015 to July 2017, 26 patients with unilateral femoral neck fractures were treated with TiRobot‐assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation. The femoral necks were fixed using three cannulated screws with robot assistance applying the following procedure: image acquisition, path planning, and needle and screw placement. The results of the treatment, including operation duration, frequency of fluoroscopy use, implant placement accuracy, intraoperative bleeding, total drilling, surgical complications, fracture healing time, fracture healing rate, and Harris scores at the last follow‐up, were recorded and compared with 23 similar patients who underwent conventional manual positioning surgery. Results A total of 147 cannulated screws were placed in all patients. The TiRobot group had shorter operation duration (62.6 ± 8.7 min vs 72.4 ± 10.3 min) and fracture healing time (5.1 ± 2.4 months vs 5.9 ± 2.8 months) than the conventional group ( P > 0.05). The robot group had significantly less use of fluoroscopy (26.5 ± 7.4 times vs 51.3 ± 9.4 times), intraoperative bleeding (8.2 ± 5.3 mL vs 36.4 ± 12.5 mL), and total drilling (9.4 ± 4.2 times vs 18.3 ± 9.1 times) than the conventional group (all P < 0.05). The screw parallelism was significantly improved (24.0 ± 0.6 points vs 21.5 ± 1.2 points) and the neck‐width coverage (72.0 ± 6.7 mm 2 vs 53.8 ± 10.4 mm 2 ) was significantly enlarged compared to the conventional group ( P < 0.05). Only three guiding needles were used to penetrate the femoral head during manual insertion in the TiRobot group, which was significantly lower than that in the conventional group (3/78, 3.8% vs 9/69, 13.0%; P < 0.05). Other complications such as wound infection, vascular or nerve injury, screw loosening, and secondary screw displacement, did not occur in the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups in fracture healing rate (88.4% vs 82.6%) and Harris scores at the last follow up (88.2 ± 3.6 points vs 87.3 ± 4.7 points; P > 0.05). Conclusion TiRobot‐assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation of femoral neck fractures is advantageous over conventional surgery with manual positioning due to easier manipulation, more accurate screw insertion, less invasion, and less radiation exposure, suggesting that it is a better method to stabilize femoral neck fra...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robot‐assisted Percutaneous Cannulated Screw Fixation of Femoral Neck Fractures: Preliminary Clinical Results

Duan

Liu

et al. 2019

Orthopaedic Surgery

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the end, the implants fit perfectly on the patient's bone. It avoids additional problems during the recovery and ensures the success of the surgery [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…These are two examples that show to the scientific community the benefits of one assisted surgery once their outcomes are proving the huge potential of these approaches [3] [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

3DSlicer module to perform registration: An intraoperative situation

Barbosa

Serrador

Santos

et al. 2017

2017 IEEE International Conference on Autonomous Robot Systems and Competitions (ICARSC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Computer-assisted surgeries (CAS) had a great improvement in last decades. Nowadays, a lot of surgeries are performed with the aid of a tracking system and robotic devices. It is important to ensure the success of the intervention when it is performed with this kind of technologies. One of the most important steps in CAS is registration that allows the surgeon to track his instruments and to know what he is doing when the surgical field of view is limited. A 3DSlicer module is presented to perform the registration procedure quickly and intuitively, since this step must be made as fast as possible. This module allows the surgeon to collect points from the patient's anatomical structure that he is working on in order to perform a point-to-point registration followed by the surface registration based on iterative closest point algorithm. Thus, it is possible to match the coordinates system of the 3DSlicer model and the coordinates system of operating room so that the preoperative 3D model on the software and the tracking of the surgical instruments used during the surgery are synchronized. An example using a sheep skull and a tracking system is described and the results of the registration are shown. The registration procedure is evaluated calculating the mean distance from the landmarks from patient's anatomical structure and the surface of the 3DSlicer model. The value obtained was 0,29 mm RMS which indicates that the module could be a good option to perform the registration in a surgical room.

show abstract

“…2,4,12,14,15,18,20,29,30 Computer-assisted surgery, including 3-dimensional (3D) analysis and 3D preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance, has become well accepted in many orthopedic areas. [25][26][27]31,34,35 In the last decade, the progress of this technology and its advantages have also been advocated in total shoulder arthroplasty. Improved accuracy of component positioning in the presence of osteoarthritis 8,17,21,28 or in the reconstruction of comminuted proximal humeral fractures 3 is probably a leading argument for the application of 3D preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%