Abstract
Though the perceived advantages of computer assisted orthopaedic systems (CAOS) have been claimed incessantly over the years, these systems are far from commonplace in most orthopaedic theatres. Here, we present a summary of those very reasons.
Health Technology Assessment report elicited no proof of clinical benefits of the Robodoc over conventional procedures. Mazoochian et al were unable to confirm the same accuracy of implant position while using the Caspar. Honl et al found a higher revision and dislocation rate accompanied with longer surgery durations when robotic assisted technology was used.
Shortcomings identified in the CT-based navigation systems included an additional CT scan, which represents extra costs for the acquisition as well as additional radiation to the patient. Sistan et al claims that image-free navigational systems in knee arthroplasty do not provide a more reliable means for rotational alignment as compared to traditional techniques. Computer assisted pedicle screw insertion in the spine has also not demonstrated any significant clinical advantages.
To date, long term results of computer-guided or robot-assisted implantation of endoprosthetic devices are still lacking. With the unproven long-term clinical and functional results of patients who had computer aided surgery and given the multi-factorial complexities of patient outcome, it is difficult to claim via small scale short term studies that these systems present a significant benefit to the patient or the healthcare providers. Potential benefits of long-term outcome, better implant survival and functional improvement require further investigation and until that information is available this technology must be further developed before its widespread usage can be justified.
Address for Correspondence: Mr K Deep, General Secretary CAOS UK, 82 Windmill Road, Gillingham, Kent ME7 5NX UK. E Mail: caosuk@gmail.com
