Advanced 3D imaging and CT-based navigation have emerged as valuable tools to use in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), for both preoperative planning and the intraoperative execution of different philosophies of alignment. Preoperative planning using CT-based 3D imaging enables more accurate prediction of the size of components, enhancing surgical workflow and optimizing the precision of the positioning of components. Surgeons can assess alignment, osteophytes, and arthritic changes better. These scans provide improved insights into the patellofemoral joint and facilitate tibial sizing and the evaluation of implant-bone contact area in cementless TKA. Preoperative CT imaging is also required for the development of patient-specific instrumentation cutting guides, aiming to reduce intraoperative blood loss and improve the surgical technique in complex cases. Intraoperative CT-based navigation and haptic guidance facilitates precise execution of the preoperative plan, aiming for optimal positioning of the components and accurate alignment, as determined by the surgeon’s philosophy. It also helps reduce iatrogenic injury to the periarticular soft-tissue structures with subsequent reduction in the local and systemic inflammatory response, enhancing early outcomes. Despite the increased costs and radiation exposure associated with CT-based navigation, these many benefits have facilitated the adoption of imaged based robotic surgery into routine practice. Further research on ultra-low-dose CT scans and exploration of the possible translation of the use of 3D imaging into improved clinical outcomes are required to justify its broader implementation. Cite this article:
Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has proven higher accuracy, fewer alignment outliers, and improved short-term clinical outcomes when compared to conventional TKA. However, evidence of cost-effectiveness and individual superiority of one system over another is the subject of further research. Despite its growing adoption rate, published results are still limited and comparative studies are scarce. This review compares characteristics and performance of five currently available systems, focusing on the information and feedback each system provides to the surgeon, what the systems allow the surgeon to modify during the operation, and how each system then aids execution of the surgical plan. Cite this article: Abstract
Stem cells are defined by their potential for self-renewal and the ability to differentiate into numerous cell types, including cartilage and bone cells. Although basic laboratory studies demonstrate that cell therapies have strong potential for improvement in tissue healing and regeneration, there is little evidence in the scientific literature for many of the available cell formulations that are currently offered to patients. Numerous commercial entities and ‘regenerative medicine centres’ have aggressively marketed unproven cell therapies for a wide range of medical conditions, leading to sometimes indiscriminate use of these treatments, which has added to the confusion and unpredictable outcomes. The significant variability and heterogeneity in cell formulations between different individuals makes it difficult to draw conclusions about efficacy. The ‘minimally manipulated’ preparations derived from bone marrow and adipose tissue that are currently used differ substantially from cells that are processed and prepared under defined laboratory protocols. The term ‘stem cells’ should be reserved for laboratory-purified, culture-expanded cells. The number of cells in uncultured preparations that meet these defined criteria is estimated to be approximately one in 10 000 to 20 000 (0.005% to 0.01%) in native bone marrow and 1 in 2000 in adipose tissue. It is clear that more refined definitions of stem cells are required, as the lumping together of widely diverse progenitor cell types under the umbrella term ‘mesenchymal stem cells’ has created confusion among scientists, clinicians, regulators, and our patients. Validated methods need to be developed to measure and characterize the ‘critical quality attributes’ and biological activity of a specific cell formulation. It is certain that ‘one size does not fit all’ – different cell formulations, dosing schedules, and culturing parameters will likely be required based on the tissue being treated and the desired biological target. As an alternative to the use of exogenous cells, in the future we may be able to stimulate the intrinsic vascular stem cell niche that is known to exist in many tissues. The tremendous potential of cell therapy will only be realized with further basic, translational, and clinical research. Cite this article:
