Abstract
Computer-assisted orthopedic surgery (CAOS) has recently evolved as an important technical application that has offered substantial improvements over conventional instrumented methods. The possibility of using computers in total joint replacement surgery is not a recent discovery, as Bargar and Paul introduced the first successful robotic application for total hips in 1987.1 Their system was a development effort with IBM, which had identified a considerable research program to apply robotics to medicine. Perhaps the most significant discovery at the time was to refine digital software algorithms to the level of “pixel accuracy” (20–30 μm). This was required for the machining of custom total hip femoral implants that were implanted at that time. The next years of evolution occurred in Europe, where computer algorithms were advanced to allow intraoperative registration, removing the need for preoperative fiducial placement. DiGioia and Jaramaz developed the first computed tomography (CT) system that could be applied for navigation of the acetabular component.2 Actually, this approach was a step backward because the complex robot was not needed. Imageless total knee applications were an even simpler method because preoperative images were no longer needed.
From a purely scientific point of view, the proof of these systems for increasing surgical precision and presumed benefit has been straightforward. The literature that I will outline clearly indicates the benefit of computer-assisted techniques over conventional instrumentation. Even in imageless total hip applications with lesser accuracy, computer-assisted surgery (CAS) provides a statistical improvement over conventional techniques from most studies. In this chapter, I offer a broad overview of the current state of the art. As with minimally invasive surgery (MIS), there are a group of early advocates who may offer a more enthusiastic viewpoint. As demonstrated, I will describe my current experience and research, which would question some of the claims regarding electromagnetic applications and imageless total hip applications, for example. However, this technology is a moving target, and improvements are being developed as we speak.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Bargar WL, Bauer A, Boerner M. (1998) Primary and revision total hip replacement using ROBODOC. Clin Orthop Relat Res Sep;(354):82–91
Jaramaz B, DiGioia AM III, Blackwell M, Nikou C. (1998) Computer assisted measurement of cup placement in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res Sep;(354):70–81
Petersen T, Engh G. (1988) Radiographic assessment of knee alignment after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 3:67–72
Berend M, Ritter M, Meding J, et al. (2004) Tibial component failure mechanisms in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res Nov;(428):26–34
Yau WP, Leung A, Chiu KY, Tang WM, Ng TP. (2005) Intraobserver errors in obtaining visually selected anatomic landmarks during registration process in nonimage based navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20:591–599
Bathis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, et al. (2004) Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:682–687
Sparmann M, Wolke B, Czupalla H, et al. (2003) Positioning of total knee arthroplasty with and without navigation support. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85:830–835
Bathis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, et al. (2004) Radiological results of image-based and non-image-based computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 28:87–90
Victor J, Hoste D. (2004) Image-based computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty leads to lower variability in coronal alignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res Nov;(428):131–139
Lionberger, DR. (2006) The attraction of electromagnetic computer navigation in orthopaedic surgery. In Navigation and Minimally Invasive Surgery, JB Stiehl, A Digioia, W Konermann, R Haaker (eds). Springer, Heidelberg
Kalairajah Y, Simpson P, Cossey AJ, Verrall GM, Spriggins AJ. (2005) Blood loss after total knee arthroplasty, effects of computer assisted surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:1480–1482
Kalairajah Y, Cossey AJ, Verall GM, Ludbrook G, Spriggins AJ. (2005) Are systemic emboli reduced in computer assisted surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:198–202
Cobb J, Henckel J, Gomes P, et al. (2006) Hands on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:188–197
Cossey AJ, Spriggins AJ. (2005) The use of computer-assisted surgical navigation to prevent malalignment in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20:29–33
Jenny J-Y. (2005) Navigated unicompartmental knee replacement. Orthopaedics 28:1263–1267
Keene G, Simpson D, Kalairag Y. (2006) Limb alignment in computer assisted minimally-invasive unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:44–48
DiGioia AM, Jaramaz B, Plakseychuk AY, et al. (2002) Comparison of a mechanical acetabular alignment guide with computer placement of the socket. J Arthroplasty 17:359–364
Haaker R, Tiedjen K, Ottersbach A, Stiehl JB, Rubenthaler F, Shockheim M. (2007) Comparison of freehand versus computer assisted acetabular cup implantation. J Arthroplasty 22(2): 151–159
Kalteis T, Handel M, Bathis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, Grifka J. (2006) Imageless navigation for insertion of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:163–167
Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, et al. (1978) Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60:217–220
Nogler M, Kessler O, Prassl A, et al. (2004) Reduced variability of acetabular cup positioning with use of an imageless navigation system. Clin Orthop Relat Res Sep(426):159–163
Stiehl JB, Heck DA. (2006) Validation of imageless total hip navigation. In Navigation and Minimally Invasive Surgery in Orthopaedics, JB Stiehl, A Digioia, W Konermann, R Haacker. (eds). Springer, Heidelberg
Stiehl JB, Heck DA, Jarmaz B, Amiot L-P. Comparison of fluoroscopic and imageless referencing in navigation of total hip arthroplasty. J Comput Assist Surg in press
Grutzner PA, Zheng G, Langlotz U, et al. (2004) C-arm based navigation in total hip arthroplasty - background and clinical experience. Injury 35(Suppl 1):A90
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stiehl, J.B. (2010). Computer-Assisted Orthopedic Surgery (CAOS): Pros and Cons. In: Scuderi, G., Tria, A. (eds) Minimally Invasive Surgery in Orthopedics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-76608-9_73
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-76608-9_73
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-76607-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-76608-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)