Abstract
Computer aided orthopaedic surgical (CAOS) technology has been around for over 20 years, and while it appears to provide better outcomes compared to conventional jigs, less than 1% of orthopaedic surgeons in USA have adopted it. This study surveyed the arguments against CAOS usage, highlighting those reasons which may continue to prevent CAOS from becoming truly widely accepted.
The survey has identified several concerns with navigation systems. For example, the pin tracts from navigation reference frames cause stress risers that increase the risk of bone fracture and soft tissue/muscle damage. Additionally, infrared trackers take footprint space (as they require line of sight access to the tracking camera), increase risk of infection, and present a potential distraction to the surgical team. With current CAOS systems, even more nstrumentation is needed than with non-navigated surgical systems, and it is arguable that navigation makes surgery more complex, requiring a knowledge of anatomic landmarks, an increased number of tasks prior to and during surgery, and an assortment of different and perhaps unfamiliar instruments. These complexities very likely result in a slow learning curve on current CAOS systems, a learning curve that is mostly not started by the majority of surgeons.
Other items of concern are the accuracy of morphed/generated bones in imageless systems (and how these models assume non-deformed anatomy), inaccuracies or distortion of the measurements (operating room lighting interfering with infrared trackers or field deformation of electromagnetic systems due to ferromagnetic instruments at the surgical site) and computer reliability. Considering the high cost (or low cost-effectiveness) of integrating CAOS into arthroplasty, and the lack of enough studies documenting truly better long term clinical results or fewer actual complications, it is evident why navigation is not yet a popular option for TKR.
As a result of the critical findings from this study, it is our view that any successful new technique/tool in surgery should make the overall procedure easier, faster, cheaper and better (or at least equally as good) as the current techniques. While robotic surgery seems to be re-emerging, we hypothesize that the next real breakthrough will come from newer more utilitarian light weight small foot print technologies actuated by surgeons themselves, with enhanced computer guidance that will allow them to reduce instrumentation, complexity, and surgical time such as navigated free-hand bone cutting. Alternative navigation technologies (e.g. UWB 3D positioning radar) where line of sight becomes less crucial, image based systems (rather than image free), artificial vision, and smart instrumentation are likely to play a major role in achieving widespread future acceptance of CAOS in TKR.
Correspondence should be addressed to Diane Przepiorski at ISTA, PO Box 6564, Auburn, CA 95604, USA. Phone: +1 916-454-9884; Fax: +1 916-454-9882; E-mail: ista@pacbell.net
