Advertisement

Total Knee Arthroplasty Technique: NAVIO

  • Ameer M. ElbulukEmail author
  • Jonathan M. Vigdorchik
Chapter

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgery for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) continues to gain popularity as orthopedists seek to enhance their abilities to place implants more precisely and consistently. However, the benefits of robotic assistance must be weighed against factors such as increased surgical time, cost, and learning curve challenges. Furthermore, due to the paucity of data on many of these newer systems, clinical studies have yet to determine their long-term benefits. Robotic-assisted navigation does provide distinct 3D data during preoperative planning that allows the surgeon to increase implant placement accuracy. The use of robotic technology is a valuable technological development that can help to improve surgical technique and potentially clinical results in total knee arthroplasty.

Keywords

NAVIO Robotics for total knee arthroplasty Computer-assisted Total knee arthroplasty 

References

  1. 1.
    Kim YH, Kim JS, Kim DY. Clinical outcome and rate of complications after primary total knee replacement performed with quadriceps-sparing or standard arthrotomy. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:467–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Park SE, Lee CT. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional manual implantation of a primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2007;22:1054–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Matsuda S, Kawahara S, Okazaki K, Tashiro Y, Iwamoto Y. Postoperative alignment and ROM affect patient satisfaction after TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):127–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bellemans J, Vandenneucker H, Vanlauwe J. Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;464:111–6.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Song EK, Seon JK, Yim JH, Netravali NA, Bargar WL. Robotic-assisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:118–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borner M, Wiesel U, Ditzen W. Clinical experiences with Robodoc and the Duracon Total knee. In: Stiehl JB, Konermann WH, Haaker RG, editors. Navigation and robotics in total joint and spine surgery. Berlin: Springer; 2004. p. 362–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mai S, Lorke C, Siebert W. Clinical results with the robot-assisted Caspar system and the search-evolution prosthesis. In: Stiehl JB, Konermann WH, Haaker RG, editors. Navigation and robotics in total joint and spine surgery. Berlin: Springer; 2004. p. 355–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Decking J, Theis C, Achenbach T, et al. Robotic total knee arthroplasty: the accuracy of CT-based component placement. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75:573–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kharwadkar N, Kent RE, Sharara KH, Naique S. 5 degrees to 6 degrees of distal femoral cut for uncomplicated primary total knee arthroplasty: is it safe? Knee. 2006;13:57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paul HA, Bargar WL, Mittlestadt B, et al. Development of a surgical robot for cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;(285):57–66.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Medical Center, Hospital for Joint DiseasesNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations