Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
General Orthopaedics

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 98-B, Issue SUPP_8 | Pages 36 - 36
1 May 2016
Henckel J Rodriguez-y-Baena F Jakopec M Harris S Barrett A Gomes M Alsop H Davies B Cobb J
Full Access

Introduction

We report 10-year clinical outcomes of a prospective randomised controlled study on uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty using an active constraint robot.

Measuring the clinical impact of CAOS systems has generally been based around surrogate radiological measures with currently few long-term functional follow-up studies reported. We present 10 year clinical follow up results of robotic vs conventional surgery in UKA.

Material and methods

The initial study took place in 2004 and included 28 patients, 13 in the robotic arm and 15 in the conventional arm. All patients underwent medial compartment UKA using the ‘OXFORD’ mobile bearing knee system. Clinical outcome at 10 years was scored using the WOMAC scoring system.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 95-B, Issue SUPP_15 | Pages 11 - 11
1 Mar 2013
Barrett A Andrews B Cobb J
Full Access

Introduction

The introduction of the Stanmore Implants Savile Row mobile-bearing UKA procedure in July 2011 marked a world first – the use of a patient-specific knee implanted with robotic technology – the Sculptor Robotic Guidance Arm (RGA). This union gives a truly personalised solution by designing an implant for each patient based upon preoperative CT data and using Sculptor RGA to prepare the bone accurately so that the implant is correctly positioned as planned. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of Sculptor RGA both in-vitro and in-vivo. We report on the accuracy of our first clinical procedures.

Methods

In-vitro:

CTs of plastic-bones were used to create plans for Sculptor RGA, establishing a relationship between the implant position and plastic-bone (planned-transform). Sculptor RGA was then used to prepare bones for 16 UKA implants mimicking the clinical set-up. The implants were placed in the prepared bones without cement. A coordinate-measuring-arm was used to register a)the bone, and b)the implant in relation to the bone (achieved-transform). The difference between planned-and-achieved transforms gives the error in implant position.

In-vivo:

Preoperative CTs of 8 OA patients, acquired using the low-dose Imperial Knee CT protocol, were used to plan the position and the shape of the patient-specific implants. Intra-operatively, Sculptor RGA was used to register and prepare the bone and the implants were cemented in place. Post-operative CTs were also acquired. Two techniques were used to measure planned-to-achieved positions of the implants: 1). Preoperative-to-postoperative CT image registration followed by extraction of the achieved implant position and comparison with the plan, 2). Surface-to-surface registration of bone-models segmented from the preoperative and postoperative CTs followed by extraction of the achieved implant position and comparison with the plan.