Introduction. Evaluations of Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery (CAOS) systems generally overlooked the intrinsic accuracy of the systems themselves, and have been largely focused on the final implant position and alignment in the reconstructed knee [1]. Although accuracy at the system-level has been assessed [2], the study method was system-specific, required a custom test bench, and the results were clinically irrelevant. As such, clinical interpolation/comparison of the results across CAOS systems or multiple studies is challenging. This study quantified and compared the system-level accuracy in the intraoperative measurements of resection alignment between two CAOS systems. Materials and Methods. Computer-assisted TKAs were performed on 10 neutral leg assemblies (MITA knee insert and trainer leg, Medial Models, Bristol, UK) using System I (5 legs, ExactechGPS®, Blue-Ortho, Grenoble, FR) and System II (5 legs, globally established manufacturer). The surgeries referenced a set of pre-defined anatomical landmarks on the inserts (small dimples). Post bone cut, the alignment parameters were collected by the CAOS systems (CAOS measured alignment). The pre- and post- operative leg surfaces were scanned, digitized, and registered (Comet L3D, Steinbichler, Plymouth, MI, USA; Geomagic, Lakewood, CO, USA; and Unigraphics NX version 7.5, Siemens PLM Software, Plano, TX, USA). The alignment parameters were measured virtually, referencing the same pre-defined anatomical landmarks (baseline). The signed and unsigned measurement errors between the baseline and CAOS measured alignment were compared between the two CAOS systems (significance defined as p<0.05), representing the magnitude of measurement errors and bias of the measurement error generated by the CAOS systems, respectively. Results. The measurement errors are presented [Table 1]. For unsigned measurement error, System II was higher in the tibial varus/valgus alignment and posterior slope (p≤0.01), and lower in the femoral varus/valgus alignment (p=0.03), compared to System I [Fig. 1]. System II exhibited higher error bias towards tibial varus alignment (up to 2.59°), more posterior slope (up to 1.41°), and more femoral hyper extension (up to 1.6°) than System I (p<0.01) [Fig. 1]. The mean signed and unsigned errors were generally less than 1°, except for System II in the measurement of tibial varus/valgus alignment (signed and unsigned mean errors=1.93°). Discussion. This study reported system-dependent bias and variability associated with intraoperative measurements of alignment parameters during TKA. The results showed that System I generally had lower variability and less bias than System II. Although the majority of the significant differences found were clinically irrelevant (<1° in means), System II was notably shown to produce on average ∼2° measurement errors in tibial varus/valgus alignment biased towards varus. Intra-operative measurement of surgical resection parameters during imageless computer-assisted TKA surgery is a critical step, in which a surgeon directly relies on the real-time data to prepare the bony resections and check the final realized cuts. Clinical-level accuracy in alignment outcomes has been shown to be system-dependent [2], this study further suggested there are differences in system-level accuracy between CAOS systems

Introduction. Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery (CAOS) has been shown to help achieve accurate, reliable and reproducible prosthesis position and alignment during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) [1]. A typical procedure involves inputting target resection parameters at the beginning of the surgery and measuring the achieved resection after bone cuts. Across CAOS systems, software/hardware design, mechanical instrumentation, and system-dependent work flow may vary, potentially affecting the intraoperative measurement of the achieved resection. This study assessed the cumulative effect of system-dependent differences between two CAOS systems by comparing the alignment deviation between the measurement of the achieved resection and the targeted parameters. Materials and Methods. TKA resections were performed on 10 neutral whole leg assemblies (MITA knee insert and trainer leg, Medial Models, Bristol, UK) by a board-certified orthopaedic surgeon (BH) using System I (5 legs, ExactechGPS®, Blue-Ortho, Grenoble, FR) and System II (5 legs, globally established manufacturer). The surgeon was deemed as “experienced” user (>30 surgeries) with both systems. The target parameters for the TKA resections, as well as major differences between the two systems are summarized in Table 1A. The deviations of the intraoperative alignment measurements on the achieved distal femoral and proximal tibial resection from the target were calculated and compared between the two systems with significance defined as p<0.05. Results. The alignment deviations (signed and unsigned) are presented in Table 1B. On average, System II had significantly higher deviation towards varus (2.2°) than System I (0.83° valgus) for the tibia (p<0.01) [Table 1B]. System I tended to measure slightly more in flexion (∼1°) than System II (∼0.5° extension) (p=0.03). System I demonstrated lower variability of the signed deviation (SD) than System II in tibial varus/valgus alignment, femoral flexion/extension, and femoral varus/valgus alignment [Fig. 1]. No significant differences were found in between systems in the unsigned errors. Both systems had measurement within the perceived acceptable range (within 3°) [2,3]. Discussion. Intraoperative measurement of the achieved TKA resections is important as it allows for intraoperative adjustment if the resections are not deemed suitable. Assuming a consistent surgical variability exhibited by the same surgeon with equal experience on both systems, this study demonstrated that some systems (System II) may have higher variability than others (System I), and exhibit clinically meaningful bias (tibial varus/valgus) while achieving or quantifying the resections. The variability may be caused by the cumulated effect of the differences between the two systems [see Table 1A]. As clinical alignment accuracy has been found to be system-dependent in a previous study [4], and archived resection parameters in the surgical report has been used as key inputs in relevant studies [5], the results here emphasizes the importance of taking into account the specific CAOS system in both clinical application and CAOS research. To view tables/figures, please contact authors directly

Unexpected findings were sometimes observed such as hyper extension, oversize of femoral component, or anterior notching of anterior femoral cortex in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using computer system. We conducted this study to evaluate these findings by a virtual simulation using ORTHODOC and then confirmed them on real patients with TKA. Virtual simulations of distal femoral cut in 50 patients using ORTHODOC system were made by way of being perpendicular to mechanical axis (CAOS way) and to intramedullary guide (manual way) in the same knee and measured the difference of sagittal cutting planes. We compared the maximum AP dimensions of femoral condyle parallel to distal cut plane. We also compared sagittal alignment and size of the femoral component in 30 bilateral TKAs, one side using ROBODOC (CAOS way) and the other side using IM guide (manual way). On virtual simulation, distal femoral cut was more extended (3.1±1.6°) in CAOS than in manual way and anteroposterior size of the femoral condyle in CAOS way was also larger than in manual way (p=0.001). Radiographic sagittal alignment of femoral component performed using CAOS way was slightly more extended than those using manual way, showing a significant difference (p=0.024). The larger femoral components were required in six patients on CAOS and in two patients on manual way, whereas twenty-two patients showed same size on both side. CAOS can provide more accurate sagittal cut perpendicular to mechanical axis than manual system, which may lead to slightly extended position or larger femoral component

Introduction: With the increasing use of CAOS techniques in Orthopaedic Surgery it is important to be aware of verification studies and sources of error that can occur. Computer assisted navigation systems should be tested with a known true standard such as a phantom model and then verified with cadaver studies before clinical trials are instituted. Errors can occur. Materials and Methods: A major focus for hip arthroplasty navigation has been on acetabular cup anteversion and inclination. Non CT navigation systems rely on an anterior pelvic plane, which is selected by the surgeon. This study looked at repeated measurements of a surgeon’s ability to manually pick the pubic symphysis and the ASIS and compared this to the same points selected fluoroscopically. A navigated acetabular cup was performed aiming for abduction of 45° and anteversion of 20°. The software model was then manipulated to transpose the different registrations to see what compound effect the anterior pelvic plane error would have. Results: Significant intra and inter observation error was recorded for registration by palpation compared to points registered by the fluoroscopic method. An error of up to 9.6° cup inclination and 11.2 ° cup anteversion could be introduced with a palpation method. Conclusion: This cadaver study indicates that with hip arthroplasty, registration from a fluoroscopic image was more accurate with a respect to determining the anterior pelvic plane when compared to direct palpation. Like all surgery done with computer navigation, registration requires an accurate determination of the points that the software needs for calculation. This must always be borne in mind when evaluating methods for CAOS

Purpose: To determine the level of promotion of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) & computer assisted orthopaedic surgery (CAOS) in total knee replacement (TKR) through internet sites by BASK members. Methods: We obtained an updated list of active members of BASK in March 2007 and permission from the executive committee to undertake this study. Standard search engines commonly used in our daily lives (viz. Google, Yahoo and Ask.com) were used to search for websites related to each surgeon during Sep–Nov 2007 period. The surgeon’s name, initials and job title thereof were used as keywords in conducting the search. Thus for each surgeon, all websites found were browsed and evaluated for MIS/CAOS and TKR/UKR information. Both direct (surgeon’s personal website/private practice) and indirect (group practice/hospital/university affiliation) information from these websites were reviewed and a standard pre-formed questionnaire proforma was filled in against that particular surgeon. Results: A total of 178 websites were found for 405 members (392 inland + 13 overseas). 2.8% and 4.5% made direct and indirect reference to MIS TKR respectively. The most commonly listed benefits of MIS were quicker recovery, smaller incision and hence lesser pain. Very few specific risks of MIS were outlined by these websites. None of the websites quoted any peer-reviewed publication to support their claims. CAOS was discussed in 1.7% and 2.8% of these sites respectively. Conclusion: Our study suggests that many active members do not have personal websites and these procedures are not commonly promoted by them via the internet. Many of these are often associated indirectly with group practice/institutional affiliation websites which may not necessarily be endorsed the surgeon. Our plan in near future is to monitor the changes in internet dissemination of information and close the audit loop by next year

Computer aided orthopaedic surgery (CAOS) systems aim to improve surgeons’ consistency and outcomes by providing additional information and graphics, often displayed on one or more computer screens. Experience has shown that surgeons often feel uncomfortable looking away from the patient to focus on the computer screen, and multiple methods have attempted to address this (e.g. by using head mounted and semi-transparent displays). We present a new approach, with a small touch-screen wirelessly controlled from the main CAOS computer and micro-controlled electronics all mounted on the cutting instrument and placed along the surgeon’s line of sight from the instrument to the wound. In addition, the micro-controlled system improves the patient’s safety by controlling the cutting speed of the blade (or stopping it), based on the saw’s positioning deviations from the planned cuts. The (on board the saw) computer-user interface also transmits commands to the main computer, based on commands issued on the touch screen. The “smart” navigated saw was built by integrating a microcontroller, optical trackers, a small 4x6cm viewable touch-screen, and a surgical oscillating saw. Bidirectional wireless communication was established between the saw and a Navigated Freehand Cutting (NFC) CAOS system allowing dynamic speed control of the blade, slowing it down for smaller errors in position/alignment (relative to planned cuts), and stopping it for bigger errors and/or risk of tissue damage. The sensitivity of the correction and width of the allowed error envelope were made adjustable to cater for the individual surgeon preferences. The touch-screen on the saw provided the surgeon with a visual aid for cutting without them having to look away while simultaneously providing control of the interface settings by touch. After electronic bench tests, two orthopaedic residents prepared eight synthetic distal femurs with the NFC system and the prototype saw to accept a commonly used TKR implant. All parts were integrated into a usable stand-alone device, with no software, hardware, or logical failure registered during the tests. The speed control responded to the established threshold errors and the preferred dynamically adjustable settings were found to be 0.5mm to 10mm of error in location and 0.5° to 10° in pitch or roll angle. The surgeons were satisfied with the user-interface for graphical guidance and system control. No significant difference in implant alignment, fit and cutting time were found compared with the standard NFC system with standard size computer monitors. By a wireless link between a CAOS system computer and the cutting instrument (with a graphical touch display screen on board), the patient’s safety and surgeon’s visibility needs were addressed allowing the screen to be aligned with the wound. With a user interface on the saw, and automatic speed and stopping control of the cutting instrument based on navigation, the surgeon is prevented from cutting in the wrong place. This surgeon-actuated but “software cutting jig” fulfils the same functions of cumbersome autonomous or passive surgical robots with their sophisticated servo and haptic interfaces, but with startling utility bringing in the era of the modern “smart” hand-held bone cutting instruments

Rapid advances in computer-assisted surgery (CAS) have lead to increasing integration of this technology into the orthopaedic training environment. The real-time feedback provided by CAS improves performance; however, it may be detrimental to learning. The primary purpose of this study is to determine if the form of feedback provided by computer-assisted technology (concurrent visual feedback) compromises the learning of surgical skills in the trainee.

Forty-five residents and senior medical students were randomised to one of three training groups and learned technical skills related to total hip replacement. The “Conventional Training” (CT) group self-determined acetabular cup position and were then corrected with traditional hand-over-hand repositioning. The “Computer Navigation” (CN) group used CAS to self-determine cup position. The “Knowledge of Results” (KR) group self-determined cup position and when satisfied used CAS for optimal repositioning. Outcomes (accuracy and precision of cup placement in abduction and anteversion, and time to position) were assessed in a pre-test, ten minute and six week retention and transfer tests. All retention and transfer tests were performed without CAS.

There were no differences between the groups at pre-test. All groups demonstrated an improvement in accuracy and precision of abduction angle and version angle determination during training (p < 0.001). The CN group demonstrated significantly better accuracy and precision in early training (p < 0.05), and better precision throughout training (p < 0.05). While the CN group demonstrated a decrease in precision during transfer testing it was not found to differ significantly from the other groups. No significant degradation in performance was observed between immediate and delayed testing for any group suggesting no negative effects of the tested training modalities on learning.

In this study the concurrent augmented feedback provided by CAS resulted in improved early performance without a compromise in learning, however, further investigation is required to ensure CAS does not compromise trainee learning. Until this issue is clarified, educators need to be aware of this potential effect.

Introduction Shoulder arthroplasty is a difficult procedure which, for success, is dependant on many factors as correct retroversion of the humeral implant.

An experimental set up was therefore devised, using a model to determine the actual accuracy of the retroversion obtained under ideal in vitro conditions in two different situations, one in which the proximal humerus was intact such as that encountered in osteoarthritis or P.A.R. and the other where most usual landmarks were missing such as that seen in the four-part fracture situation.

Materials and methods 106 prostheses were inserted into 106 arms (plastic bone). 54 bones were cut at the level of the surgical collar as in complex fractures and 54 were untouched as in omarthrosis. The first series was done without any guide (52 implants). Every operator has to put 3 prostheses with 30 degree retroversion according to his particular chosen method of mark, either the bicondylar line, or according to the position of the forearm. The second one was done with a jig (Neer 3) indicating 25 degrees of retroversion (54 implants).

The degree of retroversion of prostheses put is measured according to the angle between the axis passing by the previous face of the condyles of the ulna and the axis passing by the mark taken on the prosthesis (perpendicularly in the axis of the humerus).

The humeral axis, the condylar axis, the prosthesis plane and the cutting plane were determined. 3 barycentres of humeral sections determined the humeral axis. The condylar axis is determined from the 2 barycentres of the digitalized points on the anterior articular condylar surfaces. These 2 axes determine the frontal plane on which a reference mark R(x, y, z) is attached with Z lined up with the humeral shaft and X lined up on the condyles.

Discussion and results All these results show that with or without guide, the prosthesis is not inserted in the right way. Only one third of the P.T.E. ( 33 on 106) were put with a correct angle of retroversion, or between 20 and 40 °, with a maximum of 67,7 ° and a minimum of 4,4 ° (standard deviation 12, 8 !). Shoulder prosthesis, a difficult technique, may need computer help for the positioning especially for the retroversion angle.

Modern hip-replacement requires fixation of the femoral component, the stem, in the proximal femur. After resection of head and neck, the surgeons prepare the shaft in order to make room for the stem. Cemented fixation of the stem requires over-reaming, because the surgeon needs to provide space for the cement mantle, usually between 2 and 4 mms wide. Reaming for cemented fixation means removal of (cancellous) bone stock. Precision of reaming is not of utmost importance, as cement will fill gaps and will provide close contact between implant and bone. Cementless fixation on the other hand requires rather precise reaming, as for the biological fixation to occur, a close contact between implant and bone is crucial. There are two ways to achieve such contact: ream the bone to the precise negative form of the implant, or compress the cancellous bone into this shape. Compressing is technically easier and is regarded by some as the better option: the supposedly weak cancellous bone is compressed and provides a firm contact surface for the implant. The other option is precise reaming of the surface, sparing the scaffolding of the cancellous bone to provide biological support for the implant. It is difficult though to achieve this precise cutting with traditional tools: an animal experiment conducted by the author showed fractured and destroyed bone in the hand broached group, resulting in defects and lasting atrophy in the periphery, due to inadequate load transfer. These results coincide with a cadaver study performed by v.Hasselbach et al in 1996. The alternative to traditional hand broaching in both studies was using a high speed cutter with 70,000 rpm. As such a cutter can not be applied by hand due to the high torque; surgery was performed in both studies using a robot guiding the cutter. Cuts were performed according to a preoperatively established plan.

In the animal experiment, histological examination after one year showed no signs of atrophy in the high speed cutter group, whilst atrophy was still present in the hand broached group. These results coincide with significantly better performance in the postoperative force plating.

Conclusion: Application of navigation systems has helped to solve the problems in orientation of both cup and stem. Yet the preparation of the interface of the stem remains an unaddressed issue both in navigated and minimal invasive surgery. The use of high speed cutters (which prove to be helpful also in total knee replacement – Acrobot and Robodoc) seems an option that should not be neglected. The interface between bone and implant is the location where the fate of the implant is decided.

Cadeveric studies showed that single bundle ACL reconstructions were successful in limiting anterior tibial translation but were insufficient to control a combined rotatory load of internal and valgus torque. One possible cause of these condition could be that current single bundle procedures cannot realistically reproduce the complex anatomy of the ACL, especially the different function of its anteromedial(AM)and posterolateral(PL)bundle. The hypothesis of our study is that the addition of the PL bundle to the AM bundle, in an “in vivo” double bundle computer assisted ACL reconstruction, is actually able to reduce the internal rotation of the tibia at 30° degrees of knee flexion. Computer assisted ACL reconstruction has been used because it could be very effective in evaluating the global performance of the reconstructed knee.

Ten consecutive doble bundle ACL reconstructions were performed in our Hospital using hamstrings graft and the 2.0OrthoPilot-B. Braun-Aesculap ACLnavigation system. The average age of patients was 27.8 years.

The double-looped semitendinosus tendon replicating the AM bundle was fixed first at 60° of knee flexion. Than the gracilis tendon replicating the PL bundle was fixed at 15° of knee flexion. Maximum manual A–P displacement at 30° of flexion, maximum internal and external rotation of the knee were evaluated using the navigation system before surgery and after single(A–M)and double (AM+PL)bundle reconstruction. Statystical anlisys was done using paired T-test.

Before ACL reconstruction mean manual maximum AP displacement was 17.2mm;mean manual maximum internal rotation was 19.8mm and mean manual maximum external rotation was 16.8mm. After AM bundle reconstruction mean manual maximum AP displacement was 6.1mm;mean manual maximum internal rotation was 17.0mm and mean manual maximum external rotation was 16.3mm. After AM+PL bundles reconstruction mean manual maximum AP displacement was 5.3mm;mean manual maximum internal rotation was 16.2mm and mean manual maximum external rotation was 14.6mm. There was no statistically significant difference in the tibial internal rotation at 30° after single bundle(AM)and double bundle(AM+PL)reconstruction.

In this study the effectiveness of the PL bundle in controlling the internal rotation of the tibia, responsible of rotational instability of the knee, was evaluated in “in vivo” ACL reconstruction. The navigator system allowed us to obtain “in vivo” the real and correct value of AP displacement and internal and external rotation of the tibia before and after reconstruction.

Our hypothesis that the addition of the PL bundle to the AM bundle is actually able to reduce the internal rotation of the tibia at 30° degrees of knee flexion, minimizing the pivot shift phenomenon, on the basis of our study has not been confirmed.

We evaluated the oncological and functional outcome of 18 patients, whose malignant bone tumours were excised with the assistance of navigation, and who were followed up for more than three years. There were 11 men and seven women, with a mean age of 31.8 years (10 to 57). There were ten operations on the pelvic ring and eight joint-preserving limb salvage procedures. The resection margins were free of tumour in all specimens. The tumours, which were stage IIB in all patients, included osteosarcoma, high-grade chondrosarcoma, Ewing’s sarcoma, malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone, and adamantinoma. The overall three-year survival rate of the 18 patients was 88.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 75.4 to 100). The three-year survival rate of the patients with pelvic malignancy was 80.0% (95% CI 55.3 to 100), and of the patients with metaphyseal malignancy was 100%. The event-free survival was 66.7% (95% CI 44.9 to 88.5). Local recurrence occurred in two patients, both of whom had a pelvic malignancy. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society functional score was 26.9 points at a mean follow-up of 48.2 months (22 to 79).

We suggest that navigation can be helpful during surgery for musculoskeletal tumours; it can maximise the accuracy of resection and minimise the unnecessary sacrifice of normal tissue by providing precise intra-operative three-dimensional radiological information.

Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery (CAOS) improves mechanical alignment and the accuracy of surgical cuts in the context of total knee arthroplasty. A simplified, CAOS enhanced instrumentation system was assessed to determine if the same effects could be achieved through the use of a less intrusive system. Two cohorts of surgeons (experienced and trainees) performed a series of total knee arthroplasty resections in knee models with and without navigation-enhanced instrumentation. The percentage of resections that deviated from the planned cut by more than 2°or 2mm (outliers) was determined by post-resection advanced imaging for six unique outcome metrics. Within each experience level, the use of the CAOS enhanced system significantly reduced the total percentage of outliers as compared to conventional instrumentation (Figure 1). The experienced users improved from 35% to 4% outliers overall (p < .001) and the trainees from 34% to 10% outliers (p < .001). Comparing across experience levels, the experienced surgeons performed significantly better in only a single resection metric with conventional instrumentation (Figure 2A), varus/valgus tibial alignment, with 8.3% outliers compared to the trainee's 63% outliers (p = .004). The use of CAOS enhanced instrumentation eliminated any differences between the two user groups for all measured resections (Figure 2B). Comparing CAOS enhanced to conventional instrumentation specifically between anatomical deformity types revealed that there is significant improvement (p < .05) with the use of enhanced instrumentation for all three deformity types (Figure 3). These results suggest that non-intrusive CAOS enhanced instrumentation is a viable alternative to conventional instrumentation with possible benefits. This trial also demonstrates that additional experience may not correlate to improved surgical accuracy, and outliers may be less a result of individual surgeon ability or specific anatomic deformities, and more so related to limitations of the instrumentation used or other yet unidentified factors

INTRODUCTION. Despite that computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery (CAOS) has been shown to offer increased accuracy to the bony resections compared to the conventional techniques [1], previous studies of CAOS have mostly focused on alignment outcomes based on a small number of patients [1]. Although several recent meta-analyses on the CAOS outcomes have been reported [2], these analyses did not differentiate between systems, while system-dependency has been reported to influence alignment parameters [3]. To date, no study has benchmarked a specific CAOS system based on a large number of clinical cases. The purpose of this study is to assess the accuracy and precision of bony resection in more than 4000 cases using a specific contemporary CAOS system. Materials and Methods. Technical logs of 4292 TKAs performed between October 2012 and January 2016 using a contemporary CAOS system (ExactechGPS, Blue-Ortho, Grenoble, FR) were analyzed. The analyses were performed on: 1) planned resection, defined by the surgeon prior to the bone cuts. These parameters serve as inputs for the CAOS guidance; and 2) Checked resection, defined as digitalization of the actual resection surfaces by manually pressing an instrumented checker onto the bony cuts. Deviations in alignment and resection depths (on the referenced side) between planned and checked resections were calculated in coronal and sagittal planes for both tibia and femur (planned vs checked). Results. Summary and distribution of the deviations in resection parameters are presented in Table 1 and Fig 1. On average, the alignment deviations were near 0°, and the deviations in resection depths were less than 0.15mm. Small standard deviations were observed. Discussion. This study demonstrated that the CAOS system investigated can offer accurate and precise intra-operative guidance to the surgeon in achieving his/her surgical goals. TKA performed using conventional instruments is reported to achieve satisfactory lower limb alignment (within ±3° of alignment deviation) in only 70–80% of the cases [2,4], which may contribute to 20% of patients being dissatisfied with the results of surgery [5]. This study reviewed a large number of cases spanning the application history of the specific CAOS system, providing a complete clinically relevant evaluation of its accuracy and precision in terms of bony resection. The results confirmed that the system investigated can be used with confidence that the surgical goals can be achieved with accuracy and reliability. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly (see Info & Metrics tab above).

As previous meta-analyses on the alignment outcomes of Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery (CAOS) did not differentiate between CAOS systems, limited information is available on the accuracy of a specific CAOS system based on clinical cases. This study assessed the accuracy and precision of achieving surgical goals in approximately 7000 cases using a specific contemporary CAOS system. Alignment parameters were extracted from the technical logs of 6888 TKA surgeries performed between October 2012 and January 2017 using a contemporary CAOS system. The following surgical parameters were investigated: 1) planned resection defined by the surgeon prior to the bone cuts; 2) Checked resection defined as digitalisation of the bony cuts. Deviations in alignment between planned and checked resections were evaluated, with acceptable resections defined as no more than 3° of resection deviations. For the tibial resection, deviations in tibial varus/valgus angle and posterior tibial slope were 0.06 ± 0.94° and −0.09 ± 1.73°, respectively. For the femoral resection, deviations in femoral varus/valgus angle amd femoral flexion were 0.00 ± 0.97° and −0.17 ± 1.44°, respectively. High percentages of the resections were found to be acceptable (>94% of the cases). The CAOS system investigated was shown to provide accurate and precise intra-operative assistance to the surgeon in achieving targeted resections. The study summarised a large number of cases spanning the application history of the specific CAOS system, including both experienced users and new adopters of the technology. The data provided a complete clinical relevant evaluation demonstrating its high accuracy and precision in resection alignment

INTRODUCTION. Studies have reported that only 70–80% of the total knee arthroplasty (TKA) cases using conventional instruments can achieve satisfactory alignment (within ±3° of the mechanical axis). Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery (CAOS) has been shown to offer increased accuracy and precision to the bony resections compared to conventional techniques [1]. As the early adopters champion the technology, reservation may exist among new CAOS users regarding the ability of achieving the same results. The purpose of this study was to investigate if there are immediate benefits in the accuracy and precision of achieving surgical goals for the novice surgeons, as compared to the experienced surgeons, by using a contemporary CAOS system. Materials and Methods. Two groups of surgeons were randomly selected from TKAs between October 2012 and January 2016 using a CAOS system (ExactechGPS, Blue-Ortho, Grenoble, FR), including:. Novice group (7 surgeons): no navigation experience prior to the adoption of the system and have performed ≤20 CAOS TKAs. To investigate the intra-group variation, this group was further divided into surgeons with extensive experience in conventional TKA (novice-senior), and surgeons who were less experienced (novice-junior). Experiences group (6 surgeons): used the CAOS system for more than 150 TKAs. All the surgeries from the novice group (86 cases) and the most recent 20 cases from each surgeon in the experienced group (120 cases) were studied. Deviations in the resection parameters between the following were investigated for both tibia and femur: 1) planned resection, resection goals defined prior to the bone cuts; 2) checked resection, digitization of the realized bone cuts. The deviations were compared within the novice group (novice-senior vs novice-junior), as well as between the novice and experience groups. Knees with optimal resection (deviation<2°/mm, without clinically alter the joint mechanics [2]) and acceptable resection (deviation<3°/mm, as commonly adopted) were identified. Significance was defined as p<0.05. Results. A summary of the deviations is presented in Table 1. No statistical differences were found between the senior and the junior surgeons in the novice group. Similarly, no differences were found between the experienced group and novice group, except for that the cases in the novice group tended to resect slightly more bone in the tibia (p<0.01), and had slightly larger standard deviations compared to the experienced group. The experienced and novice groups had comparable, high percentages of the knees in both the optimal and acceptable categories (Fig 1). Discussion. This study demonstrated that regardless of the surgeon's experience with TKA, new adoption of the CAOS system investigated can immediately benefit the accuracy and precision of the bony resections at a comparable level with experience CAOS users. Although significant difference was found between novice and experienced groups in tibial resection depth, the difference (0.57mm) was clinically irrelevant. The CAOS system offers substantial reduction of the outliers compared to TKAs performed with conventional instruments [3]

Introduction. Clinical outcomes for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are especially sensitive to lower extremity alignment and implant positioning. 1. The use of computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery (CAOS) can improve overall TKA accuracy. 2. This study assessed the accuracy of an image-free CAOS guidance system (Exactech GPS, Blue-Ortho, Grenoble, FR) in both a synthetic leg with a normal mechanical axis and legs with abnormal mechanical axis. Materials and methods. A high-resolution 3D scanner (Comet L3D, Steinbichler, Plymouth, MI) was used to scan varus-deformed (n=12), neutral (n=12), and valgus-deformed (n=4) knee inserts (Mita M-00566, M-00598, M-00567; respectively, Medical Models, Bristol, UK) and collect pre-identified anatomical landmarks prior to using the models to simulate knee surgery. The image-free CAOS guidance system was then used to acquire the same landmarks. After adjusting the position and orientation of the cutting block to match the targets, bone resections were performed, and the knee models were re-scanned. The 3D scans made before and after the cuts were overlaid and the resection parameters calculated using the pre-identified anatomical landmark data and advanced software (UG NX, Siemens PLM, Plano, TX). Data sets obtained from the 3D scanner (see Figure 1A) were compared with data sets from the guidance system (see Figure 1B). Given the accuracy of the 3D scanner (<50μm), its measurements were used as the baseline for assessing CAOS system error. Results. Table I shows errors in bone resection thickness orientation measurement errors as well as CAOS system confidence intervals (CI) for both the tibia and femur, depending on deformity type. Regardless of knee deformity and other parameters, the mean error of the CAOS system was systematically less than 0.5 mm for bone resection measurements and 1° for joint angle measurements. The 95% CI were in the range of −1.54 to 0.67mm for bone resection measurements and −0.64° to 1.67° for joint angle measurements. No statistical differences were detected between different deformity groups in the Error Indexes for both the tibia and femur. Discussion. This study represents an extension of a previous evaluation of the same CAOS system, where only a limited number of neutral models (n=6) were investigated. The current study was performed to reassess the accuracy and precision of the CAOS system using the same methodology with a larger number of knee models (n=28) exhibiting different types of deformities affecting the mechanical axis. In conclusion, this study demonstrates a high level of in-vitro accuracy for the CAOS system, regardless of leg-alignment deformity type. The mean error of the CAOS system, characterized as the difference between the measured and checked values, was systematically less than 0.5 mm for bone resection measurements and 1° for joint angle measurements

Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery (CAOS) has been demonstrated to increase accuracy to component alignment of total knee arthroplasty compared to conventional techniques. The purpose of this study was to assess if learning affects resection alignment using a specific CAOS system. Nine surgeons, each with >80 TKA experience using a contemporary CAOS system were selected. Prior to the study, six surgeons had already experienced with CAOS TKA (experienced), while the rest three were new to the technology (novice). The following surgical parameters were investigated: 1) planned resection, resection parameters defined by the surgeon prior to the bone cuts; 2) checked resection, digitalisation of the realised resection surfaces. Deviations in the alignment between planned and checked resections were compared between the first 20 cases (in learning curve) and the last 20 cases (well past learning curve) within each surgeon. Any significance detected (p < 0.05) with >1° difference in means indicated clinically meaningful impact on alignment by the learning phase. Both pooled and surgeon-specific analysis exhibited no clinically meaningful significant difference between the first 20 and the last 20 cases from both experienced and novice surgeon groups. The resections in both the first 20 and the last 20 cases demonstrated acceptable rates of over 95% in alignment (<3° deviation) for both experienced and novice surgeons. This study demonstrated that independent of the surgeon's prior CAOS experiences, the CAOS system investigated can provide an accurate and precise solution to assist in achieving surgical resection goals with no clinically meaningful compromise in alignment accuracy and outliers during the learning phase

Introduction. Accurate alignment of components in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a known factor that contributes to improvement of post-operative kinematics and survivorship of the prosthetic joint. Recently, CAOS has been introduced into TKA in effort to reduce positioning variability that may deviate from the mechanical axis. However, literature suggests that clinical outcomes following TKA with CAOS may not present a significant improvement from traditional methods of implantation. This would infer that achieving correct alignment, alone, might be insufficient for ensuring an optimal reconstruction of the joint. Therefore, this study seeks to evaluate the importance of soft-tissue balancing, through the quantification of joint kinetics collected with intraoperative sensors, with or without the combined use of CAOS. Methods. Seven centers have contributed 215 patients who have undergone primary TKA with the use of intraoperative sensors. Of the 7 surgeons contributing patients to this study, 3 utilize CAOS; 4 utilize manual techniques. Along with standard demographic and surgical data being collected as per the multicenter study protocol, soft-tissue release techniques and medial-lateral intercompartmental loads—as indicated by the intraoperative sensors—were also captured pre- and post-release. “Optimal” balance was defined as a medial-lateral load difference of ≤ 15 lbs. A chi-squared analysis was performed to determine if the percentage of soft-tissue release was significantly different between the two groups: patients with CAOS, and patients without CAOS. Results. Of the 215 patients (35% with CAOS, 65% without CAOS) who have received TKA, using intraoperative sensors to assess mediolateral balance, 92.6% underwent soft-tissue release. Stratifying this data by surgical technique: 89% of the patients with CAOS, and 94% of patients without CAOS, were released. A chi-squared analysis—with 3 degrees of freedom; and 99% confidence—was executed to determine if the 5% difference between the two groups was significant. The analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups, thus we can conclude that soft-tissue release is as equally necessary in the CAOS TKA group, as it is in the traditional TKA group. Discussion. It is widely accepted that correct alignment of TKA components contributes to improved kinematic function of the affected joint. Recently, technology has been developed to digitally guide surgeons through bony cuts, thereby decreasing the incidence of deviation from the mechanical axis. However, alignment may not be the foremost contributing factor in ensuring an optimal joint state. In this evaluation, 92.6% of the cohort required some degree of releasing of ligamentous structures surrounding the knee joint, regardless of intraoperative technique used. A chi-squared analysis of the data supports the claim that soft-tissue release is used in nearly all cases, irrespective of the use of CAOS (p < 0.001). This suggests that soft-tissue release is necessary in nearly all cases, even after appropriate alignment has been digitally verified. The data strongly supports the idea that obtaining an optimally functioning joint is multifactorial, and that alignment may play a more minor role in achieving ideal joint reconstruction than previously assumed, being superseded by the necessity to achieve soft-tissue balance

Aim: To compare between the number of steps and instruments required for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using 3 different techniques. The proposed techniques were conventional technique, conventional technique with patient-specific pin locators and CAOS technique using patient-specific templates (PST). Patients and methods: Zimmer/Nexgen was used as the standard implant and templating system for TKA. A Comparison was done on the number of steps and instruments required for TKA when performed with conventional technique, conventional technique with patient-specific pin locators and CAOS technique with patient-specific templates (PST) used as cutting guides. Results: The essential steps and instruments required for conventional TKA without surgical approach or bone exposure were average 70 steps with 183 different instruments; for conventional technique with patient-specific pin locators, they were average 20 steps with 40 instruments and two templates; for CAOS technique using PST, they were average 10 steps with two templates and 15 accessory instruments. CAOS PST technique required an average of 4 days for preoperative preparation and templates fabrication. Conclusion: CAOS technique using PST could make TKA less complicated in light of essential steps and instrumentation required. Although this technique required accurate preoperative preparation, it could offer less technical errors and shorter operative time compared to conventional TKA techniques. The errors’ rate for each technique was still depending on the surgeon's skills and training; however, CAOS technique with PST required shorter learning curve