Advertisement

Potential Risk of Intelligent Technologies in Clinical Orthopedics

  • Yajun Liu
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 1093)

Abstract

Nowadays, the intelligent technologies are getting more and more attention, and the surgical robot is one of the most typical representatives. Orthopedic robots have revolutionized orthopedic surgery, but there are also risks. The risks can be categorized into those directly related to the use of the robotic system and the general risks of the operative procedure. This paper analyzes the potential risks of intelligent technologies in clinical orthopedics from three aspects, including surgical planning and strategies, spatial registration, and robotic guidance and navigation. Through these summaries, we hope to help clinical doctors better understand intelligent orthopedic techniques and promote a wide range of clinical applications of intelligent orthopedics. Besides, we also indicate the future research direction of intelligent orthopedic techniques, such as risk analysis, safety assessment, and risk management system.

Keywords

Risk analysis Intelligent technologies Surgical robot Minimally invasive surgery Precision surgery Intelligent orthopedics 

References

  1. 1.
    Korb W et al (2003) Risk analysis for a reliable and safe surgical robot system. Int Congr Ser 1256:766–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Korb W et al (2005) Risk analysis and safety assessment in surgical robotics: A case study on a biopsy robot. Minim Invasive Ther 14(1):23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morandi A et al A methodological framework for the definition of patient safety measures in robotic surgery: the experience of SAFROS project. Intell Auton Syst 12(AISC 194):155–164Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atesok K et al (2015) Preoperative Planning in Orthopaedic Surgery Current Practice and Evolving Applications. Bull Hosp Joint Dis 73(4):257–268Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Shenoy R et al (2017) Evidence for robots. SICOT J 3:38CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 7.
    Moustris GP et al (2011) Evolution of autonomous and semi-autonomous robotic surgical systems: a review of the literature. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 7:375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 8.
    TiRobot Spine product brochures.www.tinavi.com
  8. 9.
    Mazor X product brochures. www.mazor robotic.com
  9. 10.
    ROSA Spine product brochures. www.medtech surgical.com
  10. 11.
    Excelsius GPS product brochures. www.globus medical.com
  11. 12.
    MAKO product brochures. www.stryker.com
  12. 13.
    Waddell BS (2017) Technology in arthroplasty: are we improving value? Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10:378–387CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 14.
    Alemzadeh H et al Adverse events in robotic surgery: a retrospective study of 14 years of FDA data. PLoS One 11(4):e0151470CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 15.
    Devito DP et al (2010) Clinical Acceptance and Accuracy Assessment of Spinal Implants Guided with SpineAssist Surgical Robot: Retrospective Study. Spine 35(24):2109–2115CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 16.
    Tsai T-H et al (2017) Pedicle screw placement accuracy of bone-mounted miniature robot system. Medicine 96:3Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Brisbois BR. Patient lives in our [Robotic] hands: risks and implications of robotic surgery, 19th AVENUE N.E., SEATTLE, WA 98115 | www.anniesearle.com | 206.453.4386 Page 1 of 11

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yajun Liu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Spine SurgeryBeijing Jishuitan HospitalBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations