Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Direct Navigation of Surgical Instrumentation

  • Chapter
Computer-Assisted Musculoskeletal Surgery

Abstract

Hip and knee arthroplasty have a big impact on population health and economics due to the large number of procedures and their relative high costs. Joint replacements are complex surgeries, which require skillful surgeons and numerous mechanical instruments. When many such instruments make contact with the patient’s tissue, they are bound to add to the overall infection risk.

Newer patient-specific instruments address part of this burden but introduce new challenges due to the extra manufacturer planning, surgeon approval and custom jig manufacturing steps and their associated scalability and potential liability issues. Alternatively, real-time direct navigation of bones and bone resection instrumentation, which we call here Navigated Freehand Cutting (NFC), can help reduce implant-specific jigs for arthroplasty. It could also lead to cheaper, faster, easier and perhaps even better surgical procedures, by reducing the risk of infection.

In this chapter we briefly contrast standard mechanical instrumentation for arthroplasty with modern variations and alternative approaches, including conventional navigation techniques (i.e. navigated jigs) and active and passive robotics. We also describe the progress citing various bench and cadaveric experiments on our approach of Navigated Freehand Cutting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    www.robodoc.com.

  2. 2.

    www.praxim.fr.

  3. 3.

    www.makoplasty.com.

  4. 4.

    www.bluebelttech.com.

References

  1. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the united states from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:780–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, et al. The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:45–51.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Stulberg SD, Loan P, Sarin V. Computer-assisted navigation in total knee replacement: results of an initial experience in thirty-five patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A Suppl 2:90–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Intelligent Orthopaedics, Minimally Invasive Surgery for P.F.C. Sigma and P.F.C. Sigma RP Knee Systems Surgical Technique. DePuy International Limited, Cat No: 9095-31-000 Version 1, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wixon RL. Extra-medullary computer-assisted total knee replacement: towards lesser invasive surgery. In: Stiehl JB, Konermann WH, Haaker RGA, editors. Navigation and robotics in total joint and spine surgery. Germany: Springer; 2004. p. 311–8.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Konermann WH, Kister S. CT-free navigation including soft-tissue balancing: LCS-TKR and VectorVision systems. In: Stiehl JB, Konermann WH, Haaker RGA, editors. Navigation and robotics in total joint and spine surgery. Germany: Springer; 2004. p. 354–65.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Medtronic Navigation. Medtronic navigation orthopaedic surgery solutions brochure. 2005. 9670819 Rev02.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chauhan SK, Scott RG, Breidahl W, Beaver RJ. Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty versus a conventional jig-based technique. A randomised, prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:372–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Harvie P, Sloan K, Beaver RJ. Three-dimensional component alignment and functional outcome in computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study comparing two navigation systems. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:1285–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Matziolis G, Krocker D, Weiss U, Tohtz S, Perka C. A prospective, randomized study of computer-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty. Three-dimensional evaluation of implant alignment and rotation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:236–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Molli RG, Anderson KC, Buehler KC, Markel DC. Computer-assisted navigation software advancements improve the accuracy of total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:432–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Scuderi GR, Fallaha M, Masse V, et al. Total knee arthroplasty with a novel navigation system within the surgical field. Orthop Clin North Am. 2014;45:167–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pransky J. ROBODOC – surgical robot success story. Ind Robot. 1997;24:231–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC. Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg. 2004;239:14–21.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lang JE, Mannava S, Floyd AJ, et al. Robotic systems in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:1296–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Siebert W, Mai S, Kober R, Heeckt PF. Technique and first clinical results of robot-assisted total knee replacement. Knee. 2002;9:173–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Plaskos C, Cinquin P, Lavallee S, Hodgson AJ. Praxiteles: a miniature bone-mounted robot for minimal access total knee arthroplasty. Int J Med Robot. 2005;1:67–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cobb J, Henckel J, Gomes P, et al. Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective, randomised controlled study of the acrobot system. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:188–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Haider H, Barrera OA, Garvin KL. Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty surgery through navigated freehand bone cutting: winner of the 2005 “HAP” PAUL AWARD. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:535–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Berger RA, Rubash HE, Seel MJ, Thompson WH, Crossett LS. Determining the rotational alignment of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty using the epicondylar axis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;286:40–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Whiteside LA, Arima J. The anteroposterior axis for femoral rotational alignment in valgus total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;321:168–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Haider H, Barrera OA, Mahoney CR, et al. Navigated freehand bone cutting for TKR surgery: experiments with seven independent surgeons. Poster N°196 at AAOS-2008. San Francisco; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Barrera OA, Haider H, Walker PS, Sekundiak TD, Garvin KL. Freehand navigation cutting for TKR surgery without jigs: Assessment of distal femoral cuts vs. Conventional jigs. Presented at the 4th CAOS International Annual Meeting. Chicago, US; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Haider H, Barrera OA, Hartman CW, Garvin KL. Can the future bring TKR without implant specific instruments? Presentation at ISTA-2011. Bruges, Belgium; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Haider H, Al-Shawi I, Barrera OA, et al. On-tool tracking (OTT) system for navigated freehand cutting (NFC). Invited talk at ISTA-2014. Kyoto, Japan; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 6825 Pine St, Suite 120, Omaha, NE, 68106, USA

    O. Andres Barrera PhD

  2. Orthopaedics Biomechanics & Advanced Surgical Technologies Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA

    H. Haider PhD

Authors
  1. O. Andres Barrera PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Haider PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to O. Andres Barrera PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Computer-Assisted Surgery Unit, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Lucas E. Ritacco

  2. Bioengineering, Instituto Tecnologico de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Federico E. Milano

  3. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

    Edmund Chao

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Barrera, O.A., Haider, H. (2016). Direct Navigation of Surgical Instrumentation. In: Ritacco, L., Milano, F., Chao, E. (eds) Computer-Assisted Musculoskeletal Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12943-3_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12943-3_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-12942-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-12943-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation