Aims

Femoral component anteversion is an important factor in the success of total hip arthroplasty (THA). This retrospective study aimed to investigate the accuracy of femoral component anteversion with the Mako THA system and software using the Exeter cemented femoral component, compared to the Accolade II cementless femoral component.

Introduction. The use of technology, such as navigation and robotic systems, may improve the accuracy of component positioning in total hip arthroplasty (THA) but its impact on patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs) remains unclear. This study aims to identify the association between intraoperative use of technology and patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent primary THA between 2016 and 2020 and answered a post-operative PROM questionnaire. Patients were separated into three groups depending on the technology utilized intraoperatively: navigation, robotics, or no technology (i.e. manual THA. The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement (HOOS, JR) were collected at various time points (FJS: 3m, 1y, and 2y; HOOS, JR: pre-operatively, 3m, and 1y). Demographic differences were assessed with chi-square and ANOVA. Mean scores between all groups were compared using univariate ANCOVA, controlling for observed demographic differences. Results. Of the 1,960 cases included, 896 navigation, 135 robotics, and 929 manual. There was a significant statistical difference in one-year HOOS, JR scores (85.23 vs. 85.95 vs. 86.76; p=0.014) and two-year FJS-12 scores (64.72 vs. 73.35 vs. 74.63; p=0.004) between the three groups. However, they did not exceed the mean clinically important difference (MCID) at any time period. Short and long-term PROMs significantly differed between navigation and manually performed cases (FJS 3m: p=0.047; FJS 2y: p=0.001; HOOS, JR 1y: p=0.004). Two-year FJS-12 scores statistically differed between navigation and robotics (p=0.038). There was no statistical difference in either FJS-12 or HOOS, JR scores between robotics and manual THA groups at all time points (FJS 3m:p=0.076, 1y:p=0.225, 2y:p=0.793; HOOS, JR preop:p=0.872, 3m:p=0.644, 1y:p=0.531). Conclusion. Statistical differences observed between all modalities are not likely to be clinically meaningful with regards to early patient reported outcomes. While intraoperative use of technology may improve the accuracy of implant placement, these modalities have not necessarily translated into improved early reported functional outcomes

Abstract. Introduction. Controversy exists regarding the optimal tibial coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Many believe navigation or robotics are required to set kinematic alignments or to ensure they remain within ‘safe’ limits e.g. maximum 5° varus on the tibia. Given most navigation or robotic systems require the surgeon to identify the ankle malleoli, this study aimed to radiographically analyse standardly used intra-operative landmarks around the ankle, assessing their value in achieving kinematic alignment / setting safety boundaries. Materials and Methods. Long leg alignment radiographs were analysed independently by two orthopaedic surgeons at two time points, eight weeks apart. Angles were measured between the long axis of the tibia (TB) and: 1. lateral malleolus (TB-LM), 2. lateral border of the talus (TB-LT) and 3. medial aspect of the medial malleolus (TB-MM). Intra- and inter-rater reliabilities were assessed. Results. One hundred and sixty-seven radiographs in 119 patients were analysed; mean age 71.6 years. Mean angles (95% CI) were: TB-LM 4.8° (4.7°- 4.8°), TB-LT 2.6° (2.5° - 2.6°) and TB-MM 4.2° (4.1° - 4.2°). Interrater reliability was good for TB-LM (ICC = 0.72) and TB-MM (ICC=0.67), and fair for TB-LT (ICC= 0.50). Intra-rater reliability was excellent for all measures (ICC >0.85). Conclusion. There are consistent angles between tibial alignment and ankle landmarks. Using these landmarks, with standard instrumentation and alignment checks, allows surgeons to define safe limits, e.g. maximum 4.8° tibial varus if aligned to the tip of the lateral malleolus or set a 2.5° varus cut, without the need for added technology

Introduction. There is debate regarding whether the use of computer-assisted technology, such as navigation and robotics, has any benefit on clinical or patient reported outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aims to report on the association between intraoperative use of technology and outcomes in patients who underwent primary TKA. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 7,096 patients who underwent primary TKA from 2016–2020. Patients were stratified depending on the technology utilized intraoperatively: navigation, robotics, or no technology. Patient demographics, clinical data, Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS), and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR) were collected at various time points up to 1-year follow-up. Demographic differences were assessed with chi-square and ANOVA tests. Clinical data and mean FJS and KOOS, JR scores were compared using univariate ANCOVA, controlling for demographic differences. Results. During the study period, 287 (4%) navigation, 367 (5%) robotics, and 6,442 (91%) manual cases were performed. Surgical time significantly differed between the three groups (113.33 vs. 117.44 vs. 102.11 respectively; p<0.001). Discharge disposition significantly differed between the three groups (p<0.001), with a greater percentage of patients who underwent manual TKA discharged to a skilled nursing facility (12% vs. 8% vs. 15%; p<0.001) than those who had intraoperative technology utilized. FJS scores did not statistically differ at 3-months (p=0.067) and 1-year (p=0.221) postoperatively. There was a significant statistical difference in three-month KOOS, JR scores (59.48 vs. 60.10 vs. 63.64; p=0.001); however, one-year scores did not statistically differ between the three groups (p=0.320). Mean improvement in KOOS, JR scores preoperatively to one-year postoperatively was significantly largest for the navigation group and least for robotics (27.12 vs. 23.78 vs. 25.42; p<0.001). Conclusion. This study demonstrates shorter mean operative time in cases with no utilization of technology and clinically similar patient reported outcome scores associated with TKAs performed between all modalities. While the use of intraoperative technology may aid surgeons, it has not currently translated to better short-term patient outcomes

Introduction. Technology in Orthopaedic surgery has become more widespread in the past 20 years, with emerging evidence of its benefits in arthroplasty. Although patients are aware of benefits of conventional joint replacement, little is known on patients' knowledge of the prevalence, benefits or drawbacks of surgery involving navigation or robotic systems. Materials & Methods. In an outpatient arthroplasty clinic, 100 consecutive patients were approached and given questionnaires to assess their knowledge of Navigation and Robotics in Orthopaedic surgery. Participation in the survey was voluntary. Results. 98 patients volunteered to participate in the survey, mean age 56.2 years (range 19–88; 52 female, 46 male). 40% of patients thought more than 30% of NHS Orthopaedic operations involved navigation or robotics; 80% believed this was the same level or less than the private sector. A third believed most of an operation could be performed independently by a robotic/navigation system. Amongst perceived benefits of navigation/robotic surgery was more accurate surgery(47%), quicker surgery (50%) and making the surgeon's job easier (52%). 69% believed navigation/robotics was more expensive and 20% believed it held no benefit against conventional surgery, with only 9% believing it led to longer surgery. Almost 50% would not mind at least some of their operation being performed with use of robotics/navigation, with a significantly greater proportion of these coming from patients aged under 50 years. Conclusions. Although few patients were familiar with this new technology, there appeared to be a strong consensus it was quicker and more accurate than conventional surgery. Many patients appear to believe navigation and robotics in Orthopaedic surgery is largely the preserve of the private sector. This study demonstrates public knowledge of such new technologies is limited and a need to inform patients of the relative merits and drawbacks of such surgery prior to their more widespread implementation

Introduction. Technology in Orthopaedic surgery has become more widespread in the past 20 years, with emerging evidence of its benefits in arthroplasty. Although patients are aware of benefits of conventional joint replacement, little is known on patients' knowledge of the prevalence, benefits or drawbacks of surgery involving navigation or robotic systems. Materials and methods. In an outpatient arthroplasty clinic, 100 consecutive patients were approached and given questionnaires to assess their knowledge of Navigation and Robotics in Orthopaedic surgery. Participation in the survey was voluntary. Results. 98 patients volunteered to participate in the survey, mean age 56.2 years (range 19–88; 52 female, 46 male). 40% of patients believed more than 30% of NHS Orthopaedic operations involved navigation or robotics; 80% believed this was the same level or less than the private sector. A third believed most of an operation could be performed independently by a robotic/navigation system. Amongst perceived benefits of navigation/robotic surgery was more accurate surgery(47%), quicker surgery (50%) and making the surgeon's job easier (52%). 69% believed navigation/robotics was more expensive and 20% believed it held no benefit against conventional surgery, with only 9% believing it led to longer surgery. Almost 50% would not mind at least some of their operation being performed with use of robotics/navigation, with a significantly greater proportion of these coming from patients aged under 50 years. Conclusions. Although few patients were familiar with this new technology, there appeared to be a strong consensus it was quicker and more accurate than conventional surgery. Many patients appear to believe navigation and robotics in Orthopaedic surgery is largely the preserve of the private sector. This study demonstrates public knowledge of such new technologies is limited and a need to inform patients of the relative merits and drawbacks of such surgery prior to their more widespread implementation

The purpose of this study was to assess the variability in implant position between sides in patients who underwent staged, bilateral THA and whether variation from one side to the other affected patient-reported outcomes. A retrospective review was conducted on 207 patients who underwent staged, bilateral THA by the same surgeon from 2017–2022. Leg length, acetabular height, cup version, and coronal and sagittal stem angles were assessed radiographically and compared to the contralateral THA. Surgical approach and technology utilization were further assessed for their impact on variability. Linear regression was used to model the relationship between side-to-side variability and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS). Between sides, mean radiographic leg length varied by 4.6mm (0.0–21.2), acetabular height varied by 3.3mm (0.0–13.7), anteversion varied by 8.2° (0.0 to 28.7), coronal stem alignment varied by 1.1° (0.0 to 6.9), and sagittal angulation varied by 2.3° (0.0 to 10.5). The anterior approach resulted in more variability in stem angle position in both the coronal (1.3° vs. 1.0°, p=0.036) and sagittal planes (2.8° vs. 2.0° p=0.012) compared to the posterior approach. The posterior approach generally led to more anteversion than the anterior approach. Use of robotics or navigation for acetabular positioning did not increase side-to-side variability in cup-related position or leg length. Despite considerable side-to-side variability, Hip dysfunction and osteoarthritis outcome scores (HOOS JR) were not affected by higher levels of position inconsistency. Staged, bilateral THA results in considerable variability in component position between sides. The anterior approach leads to more side-to-side variability in sagittal stem angle and cup anteversion than the posterior approach. Navigation and robotics do not improve the consistency of component position in bilateral THA. Variation in implant position was not associated with differences in PROMs, suggesting that despite variability, patients can tolerate these differences between sides

The use of intraoperative navigation and robotic surgery for minimally invasive lumbar fusion has been increasing over the past decade. The aim of this study is to evaluate postoperative clinical outcomes, intraoperative parameters, and accuracy of pedicle screw insertion guided by intraoperative navigation in patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. Patients who underwent posterior lumbar fusion interbody using intraoperative 3D navigation since December 2021 were included. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36) were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 1, 3, and 6 months. Screw placement accuracy, measured by Gertzbein and Robbins classification, and facet joint infringement, measured by Yson classification, were assessed by intraoperative Cone Beam CT scans performed at the end of instrumentation. Finally, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and screw insertion time were evaluated. This study involved 50 patients with a mean age of 63.7 years. VAS decreased from 65.8±23 to 20±22 (p<.01). ODI decreased from 35.4%±15 to 11.8%±14 (p<.01). An increase of SF-36 from 51.5±14 to 76±13 (p<.01) was demonstrated. The accuracy of “perfect” and “clinically acceptable” pedicle screw fixation was 89.5% and 98.4%, respectively. Regarding facet violation, 96.8% of the screws were at grade 0. Finally, the average screw insertion time was 4.3±2 min, hospital stay was 4.2±0.8 days, operation time was 205±53 min, and blood loss was 169±107 ml. Finally, a statistically significant correlation of operation time with hospital stay, blood loss and placement time per screw was found. We demonstrated excellent results for accuracy of pedicle screw fixation and violation of facet joints. VAS, ODI and SF-36 showed statistically significant improvements from the control at one month after surgery. Navigation with intraoperative 3D images represents an effective system to improve operative performance in the surgical treatment of spondylolisthesis

Dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a well-known and potentially devastating complication. Clinicians have used many strategies in attempts to prevent dislocation since the introduction of THA. While the importance of postoperative care cannot be ignored, particular emphasis has been placed on preoperative planning in the prevention of dislocation. The strategies have progressed from more traditional approaches, including modular implants, the size of the femoral head, and augmentation of the offset, to newer concepts, including patient-specific component positioning combined with computer navigation, robotics, and the use of dual-mobility implants. As clinicians continue to pursue improved outcomes and reduced complications, these concepts will lay the foundation for future innovation in THA and ultimately improved outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):8–11

Recently, axial radiography has received attention for the assessment of distal femur rotational alignment, and satisfactory results have been as compared with the CT method. The purpose of this study was to assess rotational alignment of the femoral component in knee flexion by axial radiography and to compare flexion stabilities achieved by navigational and robotic total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In addition, the authors also evaluated the effects of flexion stability on functional outcomes in these two groups. Sixty-four patients that underwent TKA for knee osteoarthritis with a minimum of follow-up of 1 year constituted the study cohort. Patients in the navigational group (N = 32) underwent TKA using the gap balancing technique and patients in the robotic group (N = 32) underwent TKA using the measured resection technique. To assess flexion stability using axial radiography a novel technique designed by the authors was used. Rotations of femoral components and mediolateral gaps in the neutral position on flexion radiographs was measured and compared. Valgus and varus stabilities under valgus-varus stress loading, and total flexion stabilities (defined as the sum of valgus and varus stability) were also compared, as were clinical outcomes at final follow up visits. A significant difference was found between the navigation and robotic groups for mean external rotation of the femoral component (2.1° and 0.4°, respectively; p = 0.003). Mean mediolateral gap in neutral at 90° flexion position was 0.17° in the navigation group and 0.07° in the robotic group (p = 0.126), and mean total stability was 7.82° in the robotic group and 8.10° in the navigation group (p = 0.35). Clinically, no significant intergroup difference was found in terms of ranges of motion, HSS scores, KS scores, or WOMAC scores. Both navigational and robotic techniques provide excellent clinical and flexion stability results. Furthermore, axial radiography was found to provide a useful, straightforward means of detecting rotational alignment, flexion gaps, and flexion stability

Restoring native hip biomechanics is crucial to the success of THA. This is reflected both in terms of complications after surgery such as instability, leg length inequality, pain and limp; and in terms of patient satisfaction. The challenge that remains is that of achieving optimal implant sizing and positioning so as to restore, as closely as possible, the native hip biomechanics specific to the hip joint being replaced. This would optimise function and reduce complications, particularly, instability. (Mirza et al., 2010). Ideally, this skill should also be reproducible irrespective of the surgeon's experience, volume of surgery and learning curve. The general consensus is that the most substantial limiting factor in a THA is the surgeon's performance and as a result, human errors and unintended complications are not completely avoidable (Tarwala and Dorr, 2011). The more challenging aspects include acetabular component version, sizing and femoral component sizing, offset and position in the femoral canal. This variability has led to interest in technologies for planning THA, and technologies that help in the execution of the procedure. Advances in surgical technology have led to the development of computer navigation and robotic systems, which assist in pre-operative planning and optimise intra-operative implant positioning. The evolution of surgical technology in lower limb arthroplasty has led to the development of computer navigation and robotics, which are designed to minimise human error and improve implant positioning compared to pre-operative templating using plain radiographs. It is now possible to use pre-operative computerised tomography (image-based navigation) and/or anatomical landmarks (non-imaged-based navigation) to create three-dimensional images of each patient's unique anatomy. These reconstructions are then used to guide bone resection, implant positioning and lower limb alignment. The second-generation RIO Robotic Arm Interactive Orthopaedic system (MAKO Surgical) uses pre-operative computerised tomography to build a computer-aided design (CAD) model of the patient's hip. The surgeon can then plan and execute optimal sizing and positioning of the prostheses to achieve the required bone coverage, minimise bone resection, restore joint anatomy and restore lower limb biomechanics. The MAKO robotic software processes this information to calculate the volume of bone requiring resection and creates a three-dimensional haptic window for the RIO-robotic arm to resect. The RIO-robotic arm has tactile and audio feedback to resect bone to a high degree of accuracy and preserve as much bone stock as possible. We have used this technology in the hip to accurately reproduce the anteversion, closure and center of rotation that was planned for each hip. Whilst the precise safe target varies from patient to patient, the ability to reproduce native biomechanics, to gain fixation as planned and to get almost perfect length and offset are a great advantage. Complications such as instability and leg length inequality are thus dramatically reduced

In the framework of the modiCAS (Modular Interactive Computer Assisted Surgery) Project, which emerged from a collaboration of the University of Siegen and the University of Frankfurt in the fields of mechatronics and medicine, the development of a modular system to assist the surgeon during the whole planning and operation procedure has been started. A completely new realization of a planning system for bone surgery and alloarthroplasty is presented. Characteristics of the new system are generic interfaces for navigation, robotics and real-time data acquisition, graphic interactivity, documentation of each planning-step, a flexible wizard-guided concept and adaptable teaching modes. The system can be configured to any data source such as X-ray, CT, MRI, US with individual calibration. For planning, the data sources can be merged in any user defined way. In contrast to all existing planning systems the presented system can optionally be linked to navigation and robotic systems. The software was realized to run platform-independent on any personal computer surrounding. We used commercially available software libraries for computer graphics and graphical user interface programming. The whole system consists of several modules which are closely linked together and support all major pre- and intraoperative steps of surgery. The user interface remains the same during the planning and the intervention. Preoperative planning is carried out on a totally new planning station comprising an interactive and intuitive graphic interface, while intraoperative features include interactive matching procedures, true real-time-capability and incorporation of navigation and robotics. Initially we realized modules to support total hip allo-arthroplasty. The first application of the system is for a clinical trial on total hip alloarthroplasty. Planning is performed on the basis of radiographs and CT-datasets. Intraoperatively a navigation system and a robotic surgery system are used. Preliminary results show very precise and reproducible plannings that could be achieved in short time without special training of the clinician. Furthermore the unlimited intraoperative access to the whole planning dataset appeared to be very convenient to the surgeon because it allowed immediate response to unforeseen patient specific situations. Future adaptations of the universal planning system will be total knee alloarthroplasty, spine surgery and trauma surgery. The existing system can easily be configured to any surgical procedure because the same basic functionality is used for all applications and only special configurative datasets have to be generated for each application. The open architecture of the system enables easy integration of further input or output devices, an easy adaptation to different interventions, planning styles and operative techniques is possible

This technique is a novel superior based muscle sparing approach. Acetabular reaming in all hip approaches requires femoral retraction. This technique is performed through a hole in the lateral femoral cortex without the need to retract the femur. A 5 mm hole is drilled in the lateral femur using a jig attached to the broach handle, similar to a femoral nail. Specialised instruments have been developed, including a broach with a hole going through it at the angle of the neck of the prosthesis, to allow the rotation of the reaming rod whilst protecting the femur. A special C-arm is used to push on the reaming basket. The angle of the acetabulum is directly related to the position of the broach inside the femoral canal and the position of the leg. A specialised instrument allows changing of offset and length without dislocating the hip during trialling. Some instrumentation has been used in surgery but ongoing cadaver work is being performed for proof of concept. The ability to ream through the femur has been proven during surgery. The potential risk to the bone has been assessed using finite analysis as minimal. The stress levels for any diameter maintained within a safety factor >4 compared to the ultimate tensile strength of cortical bone. The described technique allows for transfemoral acetabular reaming without retraction of the femur. It is minimally invasive and simple, requiring minimal assistance. We are incorporating use with a universal robot system as well as developing an electromagnetic navigation system. Assessment of the accuracy of these significantly cheaper systems is ongoing but promising. This approach is as minimally invasive as is possible, safe, requires minimal assistance and has a number of other potential advantages with addition of other new navigation and simple robotic attachments

Precision planning with correct sizing and placement of components is critical to proper execution of total hip arthroplasty. While the desire to achieve excellent outcomes has always been a surgeon's goal, value-based care programs such as the Comprehensive Joint Replacement (CJR) program apportion real expenditures for the cost of treating complications such as fracture or dislocation to the participants. Such accountability accentuates the importance of optimizing the planning and execution of joint replacement surgery. Acetabular component sizing and placement in particular remains the single greatest challenge to surgeons. This is simply due to the fact that the requisite spatial information is not available to the surgeon during conventional surgery. Basing component placement on local anatomical landmarks without knowing the patient-specific nature of those landmarks ensures poor component placement in many cases. As a result, studies demonstrate that at least ½ of all acetabular components placed using conventional methods are malpositioned. Potential solutions include the using of intra-operative radiographic analysis, traditional navigation and robotics. Unfortunately, measurements of plain radiographs have repeatedly been shown to be inaccurate due to lack of knowledge of and correction for beam center location, magnification, beam divergence, and position of the pelvis itself on the image. As a result, such quantification of unquantifiable images can systematically lead to poor decisions. Intra-operative radiograph measurement methods have been shown to lead to anteversion measurement errors as high as 27 degrees. Similarly, there is a perception that performing total hip arthroplasty through the anterior exposure can result in reliable cup positioning when fluoroscopy is used, but such procedures have also been shown to have a high incidence of cup malposition. Image-free navigation, image-based navigation, and image-based robotics can potentially lead to accurate component placement. Adoption of these technologies, however, has been limited, possibly due to the increase in time of use, complexity, and cost of these systems. Robotic systems have also proven to be potentially hazardous and inaccurate in routine clinical use. A cloud-based, patient-specific hip surgery planning and smart-tool cup navigation system was developed to address the most common technical problems affecting hip arthroplasty (HipXpert System, Surgical Planning Associates, Boston, MA). The methodology provides the surgeon with a full 3D plan of the surgery including cup size, cup orientation, stem size, head length, femoral anteversion, and planned change in leg length and offset. The application controlling the plan allows the surgeon to instantly change the plan and shows the implants in both 3D and on multiplanar cross-sectional views. The associated smart tool is adjusted specifically for that patient and when docked, provides orientation information to the surgeon. The system has been proven to be robust, with repeated studies showing accurate cup placement in 100% of cases including by an independent study. This compares to a recent study of robotic methods that measured 88% for inclination and 84% for anteversion. Cloud-based 3D planning combined with smart mechanical navigation of cup placement offers the optimum combination of accuracy, speed, and simplicity for solving the ubiquitous problems of acetabular component malorientation and provides critical pre-operative information including acetabular and femoral component sizes, planned femoral anteversion, and planned changes in leg length and offset of the surgery

To introduce a new robot-assisted surgical system for spinal posterior fixation which called TiRobot, based on intraoperative three-dimensional images. TiRobot has three components: the planning and navigation system, optical tracking system and robotic arm system. By combining navigation and robot techniques, TiRobot can guide the screw trajectories for orthopedic surgeries. In this randomised controlled study approved by the Ethics Committee, 40 patients were involved and all has been fully informed and sign the informed consent. 17 patients were treated by free-hand fluoroscopy-guided surgery, and 23 patients were treated by robot-assisted spinal surgery. A total of 190 pedicle screws were implanted. The overall operation times were not different for both groups. None of the screws necessitated re-surgery for revised placement. In the robot-assisted group, assessment of pedicle screw accuracy showed that 102 of 102 screws (100%) were safely placed (<2 mm, category A+B). And mean deviation in entry point was 1.70 +/− 0.83mm, mean deviation in end point was 1.84 +/− 1.04mm. In the conventional freehand group, assessment of pedicle screw accuracy showed that 87 of 88 (98.9%) were safely placed (<2 mm, category A+B), 1 screw fall in category C, mean deviation in entry point was 3.73 +/− 2.28mm, mean deviation in end point was 4.11 +/− 2.31mm. This randomised controlled study verified that robot-assisted pedicle screw placement with real-time navigation is a more accuracy and safer method, and also revealed great clinical potential of robot-assisted surgery in the future

Introduction. While component malposition remains a major short and long term problem associated with total hip arthroplasty, enhanced technologies such as navigation and robotics have not yet been widely adopted. Both expense and increased OR time can be obstacles to adoption. The current study assesses the effect of the use of a smart mechanical navigation system on surgery time in total hip arthroplasty. Patients and Methods. 514 consecutive primary total hip arthroplasties were performed by a single surgeon from January 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016. Of these, 40 were performed using a smart mechanical navigation system (the HipXpert System, Surgical Planning Associates Inc., Boston, Massachusetts) and 474 were performed without navigation. The patients were not randomized. Incision to closure time (surgery time) was recorded for each procedure. A two tailed t-test was performed to assess statistical significance. Results. Mean surgery time for the non-navigated cases was 66 minutes. Mean surgery time for the navigated cases was 70 minutes. The difference in surgery time between the two groups was statistically significant (p=0.003). Conclusion. Adoption and use of a smart mechanical navigation system has a measurable increase in OR time of 4 minutes. This increase in OR time is quite small and with experience, is likely to further decrease. The amount of surgery time necessary for the use of the system is small compared to traditional navigation systems and especially to robotic systems. The study demonstrates that the adoption of a new smart mechanical navigation system increased surgery time very little. We anticipate that increased experience with the system will allow for the reduction in the need for intraoperative radiographs, which will further decrease surgery time and associated cost while simultaneously improving accuracy

Aims

Implant waste during total hip arthroplasty (THA) represents a significant cost to the USA healthcare system. While studies have explored methods to improve THA cost-effectiveness, the literature comparing the proportions of implant waste by intraoperative technology used during THA is limited. The aims of this study were to: 1) examine whether the use of enabling technologies during THA results in a smaller proportion of wasted implants compared to navigation-guided and conventional manual THA; 2) determine the proportion of wasted implants by implant type; and 3) examine the effects of surgeon experience on rates of implant waste by technology used.

Acetabular component malalignment remains the single greatest root cause for revision THA with malposition of at least half of all acetabular components placed using conventional methods. These studies repeatedly document that the concept of using local anatomical landmarks has no scientific basis over a breadth of presenting pathology. Traditional navigation and robotics can potentially lead to improved component placement but these technologies have not gained widespread use due to the increase in time of use, complexity, and cost of these systems. Robotic systems have also proven to be potentially hazardous and inaccurate in routine clinical use. The alternative of placing the cup in the supine position, even with the use of arthroscopy, has been proven to have an incidence of inaccuracy equal or greater than that in the lateral position. A smart mechanical instrument system was developed to quickly and easily achieve accurate cup alignment (HipXpert System, Surgical Planning Associates, Boston, MA). The system is based on a low dose, low cost CT study and a customised patient-specific surgery plan. The laterally-based system docks on a patient-specific basis with 3 legs: one through the incision behind the posterior rim, one percutaneously on the lateral side of the ASIS, and a third percutaneously on the surface of the ilium. A direction indicator on the top of the instrument points in the desired cup orientation. The anteriorly-based system also docks on a patient-specific basis with one leg on the anterior ischium and one leg on each ASIS, either to skin or to bone. The lateral system has been proven to be robust, with repeated studies showing accurate cup placement in 100% of cases and an independent study showing accurate cup placement in 98% of cases for both anteversion and inclination. This compares to a recent study of robotic methods that 88% of inclination and 84% for anteversion. Smart mechanical navigation of cup placement offers the optimum combination of accuracy, speed, and simplicity for solving the ubiquitous problem of acetabular component malorientation

Aim. To report our experience of using computer navigated and mini-robot assisted total knee arthroplasty and to assess its feasibility. Methods. A retrospective analysis was done on all of the total knee arthroplasties performed between 12/07/2002 and 12/12/2003 by the lead surgeon using both the conventional technique and the computer navigated/robot assisted technique. Results. A total of 47 patients fell between the two groups (22 in the navigation/robot assisted group and 25 in the conventional group). Osteoarthritis was the indication for surgery in all the patients. Mean tourniquet time was 118.6 mins (range 98–143 mins) in the navigation/robotic group, which was significantly longer than the conventional group (mean 96.2 mins and range 61–131 mins). Blood loss as estimated from the difference between pre and post op haemoglobin measurements was 3.2 g/dl (range 0.2–6.2 g/dl) in the navigation/robotic group as compared to 3.1 g/dl (range 1.0–6.6 g/dl) in the conventional group. Mean length of stay was 8.7 days post op and 8.9 days post op in the navigated/robotic and conventional groups respectively. There were no physical surgical complications in the navigated/robotic group and 3 in the conventional group (1 superficial cellulitis, 1 haematoma and 1 case of temporary sensory loss to the sole of the foot). 3 cases from the navigated/robot-assisted group had to be completed with the conventional technique due to software/hardware failure intra-operatively. Other factors to consider, which are difficult to quantify, but which were noted in the navigated/robotic group are:. Training of the surgeon. Training of the theatre personnel. Cost of the system. Cleaning/sterilisation burden of the robot and tools, which have stringent requirements and long turn around times. Requirement of technical assistance with equipment and software. Radiographic assessment (need long leg films to accurately assess alignment). Conclusion. The use of navigation/robot-assisted technique results in a longer tourniquet time at present, but does not increase the blood loss, affect the length of stay post operatively or increase complications. It is more demanding on the normal theatre resources and still requires refinement in order to prevent intra-operative failures. Further long-term outcome and cost-benefit studies are required to justify its widespread implementation

We live in an era where younger, fitter, more active patients are presenting with the symptoms and signs of degenerative joint disease and require total knee and total hip arthroplasty at a young age. At the same time, this population of patients is living longer and longer and is likely to create new and more complex failure modes for their implants. The ideal solution is a biological one, whereby we can either prevent joint degradation or catch it in its early stages and avoid further deterioration. There may also be advances along the way in terms of partial arthroplasty and focal resurfacing that will help us prevent the need for total joint arthroplasty. There are several tensions that need to be considered. Should we resurface / replace early, particularly now that we have access to navigation and robotics and can effectively customise the implants to the patient's anatomy and their gait pattern? This would allow good function at a young age. Or should we wait as long as possible and risk losing some function for the sake of preserving the first arthroplasty for the lifetime of the patient?. There are some key issues that we still do not fully understand. The lack of true follow-up data beyond 20 or 30 years is worrying. The data available tends to be from expert centers, and always has a dramatic loss to follow-up rate. We worry about bearing surfaces and how those materials will behave over time but we really do not know the effect of chronic metal exposure over several decades, nor do we really understand what happens to bone as it becomes more and more osteopenic and fragile around implants. We have largely recorded but ignored stress shielding, whereas this may become a very significant issue as our patients get older, more fragile, more sarcopaenic and more neurologically challenged. All the fixation debates that we have grappled with, may yet come back to the fore. Can ingrowth lead to failure problems later on? Will more flexible surfaces and materials be required to fit in with the elasticity of bone?. We have failed dramatically at translating the in vitro to the in vivo model. It seems that the in vitro model tells us when failure is going to occur but success in vitro does not predict success in vivo. We, therefore, cannot assume that long-term wear data from simulators will necessarily translate to the extreme situations in vivo where the loading is not always idealised, and can create adverse conditions. We must, therefore, consider further how to improve and enhance our interventions. There is no doubt that the avoidance of arthroplasty needs to be at the heart of our thinking but, ultimately, if arthroplasty is to be performed, it needs to be performed expertly and in such a way as to minimise later failure. It also, clearly, needs to be cost-effective. The next stage will no doubt involve close cooperation between surgeons, engineers and industry partners to identify individualised surgical targets, select an appropriate prosthesis to minimise soft-tissue strain and develop a reproducible method of achieving accurate implantation. An ideal outcome can only be achieved by an appropriately trained surgeon selecting the optimal prosthesis to implant in the correct position in the well-selected patient. In the longer term, our choice of implants and the way that they are inserted and fixed must take into account the evolving physiology of our patients, the nature of our devices and how to limit harm from them, and the long-term impact of the materials used which we sometimes still do not understand