High Degree of Accuracy of a Novel Image-free Handheld Robot for Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty in a Cadaveric Study
Surgical robotics has been shown to improve the accuracy of bone preparation and soft tissue balance in unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA). However, although extensive data have emerged with regard to a CT scan-based haptically constrained robotic arm, little is known about the accuracy of a newer alternative, an imageless robotic system.
We assessed the accuracy of a novel imageless semiautonomous freehand robotic sculpting system in performing bone resection and preparation in UKA using cadaveric specimens.
In this controlled study, we compared the planned and final implant placement in 25 cadaveric specimens undergoing UKA using the new tool. A quantitative analysis was performed to determine the translational, angular, and rotational differences between the planned and achieved positions of the implants.
The femoral implant rotational mean error was 1.04° to 1.88° and mean translational error was 0.72 to 1.29 mm across the three planes. The tibial implant rotational mean error was 1.48° to 1.98° and the mean translational error was 0.79 to 1.27 mm across the three planes.
The image-free robotic sculpting tool achieved accurate implementation of the surgical plan with small errors in implant placement. The next step will be to determine whether accurate implant placement translates into a clinical and functional benefit for the patient.
KeywordsRoot Mean Square Error Femoral Component Robotic System Tibial Component Robotic Technology
We thank the technicians in the Anatomy Laboratory at Strathclyde University for their help during the project.
- 2.Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Available at: https://aoanjrr.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/en. Accessed September 13, 2013.
- 7.Dunbar NJ, Roche MW, Park BH, Branch SH, Conditt MA, Banks SA. Accuracy of dynamic tactile-guided unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:803–808.e1.Google Scholar
- 13.Jenny JY, Boeri C. Unicompartmental knee prosthesis implantation with a non-image-based navigation system: rationale, technique, case-control comparative study with a conventional instrumented implantation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosoc. 2003;11:40–45.Google Scholar
- 18.Lustig S, Paillot JL, Servien E, Henry J, Ait Si Selmi T, Neyret P. Cemented all polyethylene tibial insert unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a long term follow-up study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009;95:12–21.Google Scholar
- 21.National Joint Registry. Available at: www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Portals/0/Documents/England/Reports/10th_annual_report/NJR%2010th%20Annual%20Report%202013%20B.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2014.
- 22.New Zealand Joint Registry. Available at: www.nzoa.org.nz/news/new-zealand-joint-registry-thirteen-year-report. Accessed September 13, 2013.
- 23.Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Available at: http://nrlweb.ihelse.net/eng/Report_2010.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2013.
- 25.Orthopedic Network News. 2013 Hip and Knee Implant Review. Available at: www.OrthopedicNetworkNews.com. 2013;24. Accessed September 14, 2013.
- 28.Smith JR, Picard F, Rowe PJ, Deakin A, Riches PE. The accuracy of a robotically-controlled freehand sculpting tool for unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2013;95(Suppl):68.Google Scholar
- 29.Smith JR, Riches PE, Rowe PJ. Accuracy of a freehand sculpting tool for unicondylar knee replacement. Int J Med Robot. 2013 Aug 11 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
- 32.Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Available at: www.knee.nko.se/english/online/uploadedFiles/117_SKAR_2012_Engl_1.0.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2013.
- 34.Wiles AD, Thompson DG, Frantz DD. Accuracy assessment and interpretation for optical tracking systems. Medical Imaging. 2004;5367:421–432.Google Scholar