The primary aim of this study was to determine the surgical team’s
learning curve for introducing robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental
knee arthroplasty (UKA) into routine surgical practice. The secondary
objective was to compare accuracy of implant positioning in conventional
jig-based UKA versus robotic-arm assisted UKA. This prospective single-surgeon cohort study included 60 consecutive
conventional jig-based UKAs compared with 60 consecutive robotic-arm
assisted UKAs for medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. Patients
undergoing conventional UKA and robotic-arm assisted UKA were well-matched
for baseline characteristics including a mean age of 65.5 years
(Aims
Patients and Methods
The use of robotics in arthroplasty surgery is expanding rapidly as improvements in the technology evolve. This article examines current evidence to justify the usage of robotics, as well as the future potential in this emerging field.
Robots have been used in surgery since the late
1980s. Orthopaedic surgery began to incorporate robotic technology
in 1992, with the introduction of ROBODOC, for the planning and
performance of total hip replacement. The use of robotic systems
has subsequently increased, with promising short-term radiological
outcomes when compared with traditional orthopaedic procedures.
Robotic systems can be classified into two categories: autonomous
and haptic (or surgeon-guided). Passive surgery systems, which represent
a third type of technology, have also been adopted recently by orthopaedic
surgeons. While autonomous systems have fallen out of favour, tactile systems
with technological improvements have become widely used. Specifically,
the use of tactile and passive robotic systems in unicompartmental
knee replacement (UKR) has addressed some of the historical mechanisms
of failure of non-robotic UKR. These systems assist with increasing
the accuracy of the alignment of the components and produce more
consistent ligament balance. Short-term improvements in clinical
and radiological outcomes have increased the popularity of robot-assisted
UKR. Robot-assisted orthopaedic surgery has the potential for improving
surgical outcomes. We discuss the different types of robotic systems
available for use in orthopaedics and consider the indication, contraindications
and limitations of these technologies.
The use of robots in orthopaedic surgery is an
emerging field that is gaining momentum. It has the potential for significant
improvements in surgical planning, accuracy of component implantation
and patient safety. Advocates of robot-assisted systems describe
better patient outcomes through improved pre-operative planning
and enhanced execution of surgery. However, costs, limited availability,
a lack of evidence regarding the efficiency and safety of such systems
and an absence of long-term high-impact studies have restricted
the widespread implementation of these systems. We have reviewed
the literature on the efficacy, safety and current understanding of
the use of robotics in orthopaedics. Cite this article:
In light of the growing number of elderly osteopenic
patients with distal humeral fractures, we discuss the history of
their management and current trends. Under most circumstances operative
fixation and early mobilisation is the treatment of choice, as it
gives the best results. The relative indications for and results
of total elbow replacement
We performed a prospective, randomised controlled trial of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty comparing the performance of the Acrobot system with conventional surgery. A total of 27 patients (28 knees) awaiting unicompartmental knee arthroplasty were randomly allocated to have the operation performed conventionally or with the assistance of the Acrobot. The primary outcome measurement was the angle of tibiofemoral alignment in the coronal plane, measured by CT. Other secondary parameters were evaluated and are reported. All of the Acrobot group had tibiofemoral alignment in the coronal plane within 2° of the planned position, while only 40% of the conventional group achieved this level of accuracy. While the operations took longer, no adverse effects were noted, and there was a trend towards improvement in performance with increasing accuracy based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and American Knee Society scores at six weeks and three months. The Acrobot device allows the surgeon to reproduce a pre-operative plan more reliably than is possible using conventional techniques which may have clinical advantages.
In a global environment of rising costs and limited funds, robotic and computer-assisted orthopaedic technologies could provide the means to drive a necessary revolution in arthroplasty productivity. Robots have been used to operate on humans for 20 years, but the adoption of the technology has lagged behind that of the manufacturing industry. The use of robots in surgery should enable cost savings by reducing instrumentation and inventories, and improving accuracy. Despite these benefits, the orthopaedic community has been resistant to change. If the ergonomics and economics are right, robotic technology just might transform the provision of joint replacement.
