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. 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 (Introduction
Materials and Methods
Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery (CAOS) has been shown to assist in achieving accurate and reproducible prosthesis position and alignment during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) [1]. The most prevalent modality of navigator tracking is optical tacking, which relies on clear line-of-sight (visibility) between the localizer and the instrumented trackers attached to the patient. During surgery, the trackers may not always be optimally positioned and orientated, sometimes forcing the surgeon to move the patient's leg or adjust the camera in order to maintain tracker visibility. Limited information is known about tracker visibility under clinical settings. This study quantified the rotational limits of the trackers in a contemporary CAOS system for maintaining visibility across the surgical field. A CAOS system (ExactechGPS®, Blue-Ortho, Grenoble, FR) was set up in an operating room by a standard surgical table according to the manufacture's recommendation. A grid with 10×10 cm sized cells was placed at the quadrant of the surgical table associated with the TKA surgical field [Fig. 1A,B]. The localizer was set up to aim at the center of the grid. A TKA surgical procedure was then initiated using the CAOS system. Once the trackers-localizer connection was established, the CAOS system constantly monitored the root mean square error (RMS) of each tracker. The connection was immediately aborted if the measured RMS was above the defined threshold. Therefore, “visibility” was defined as the tracker-localizer connection with proper accuracy level. An F tracker from the tracker set (3 trackers with similar characteristics) was placed at the center of each cell by a custom fixture, facing along the +Y axis [Fig. 1]. The minimum and maximum angles of rotation around the Z axis (RAZ_MIN and RAZ_MAX) and X axis (RAX_MIN and RAX_MAX) for maintaining tracker visibility were identified. For each cell, the rotational limit of the tracker was calculated for each axis of rotation as the difference between the maximum and minimum angles (RLX and RLZ).Introduction
Materials and Methods
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. 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.Introduction
Materials and Methods
Computer-assisted orthopaedic surgery (CAOS) provides great value in ensuring accurate, reliable and reproducible total knee arthroplasty (TKA) outcomes [1,2]. Depending on surgeon preferences or patient factors (e.g. BMI, ligament condition, and individual joint anatomy), resection planning (guided adjustment of cutting blocks) is performed with different knee flexion, abduction/adduction (ABD/ADD) and internal/external (I/E) rotation angles, potentially leading to measurement errors in the planned resections due to a modified tracker/localizer spatial relationship. This study assessed the variation in the intraoperative measurement of the planned resection due to leg manipulation during TKA, and identified the leg position variables (flexion, ABD/ADD, and I/E rotation) contributing to the variability. Computer-assisted TKA (ExactechGPS®, Blue-Ortho, Grenoble, FR) was performed on a neutral whole leg assembly (MITA knee insert and trainer leg, Medial Models, Bristol, UK) by a board-certified orthopaedic surgeon (BH) at his preferred leg flexion, ABD/ADD, and I/E rotation angles. A cutting block was adjusted and fixed to the tibia, targeting the resection parameters listed in Table 1A. An instrumented resection checker was then attached to the cutting block to measure the planned resection at the same leg position (baseline). Next, the surgeon moved the leg to 9 sampled positions, representing typical leg position/orientation associated with different steps during TKA [Table 1B]. The planned resection was tracked by the CAOS system at each leg position. Tibial resection parameters at each sampled position were compared to the baseline. Regression was performed to identify the variables (flexion, ABD/ADD, I/E rotation) that significantly contribute to the measured variation (p<0.05).Introduction
Materials and Methods
