Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Virtual and augmented reality for surgical training and simulation in knee arthroplasty

  • Knee Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Immersive virtual reality (IVR), augmented reality and mixed reality form a spectrum of extended reality technology integration that has gained popularity in orthopaedics recently. This review article examines the role of extended reality technologies in knee arthroplasty.

Methods

Existing literature on the applications of extended reality technologies in preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation were reviewed. A sample workflow of a novel IVR simulator for improving surgical training was also provided to demonstrate its utility in educating trainees on knee arthroplasty techniques.

Results

Extended reality technologies enable the surgeon to visualise patient-specific anatomy in real-time, enhancing preoperative planning and providing intraoperative guidance. IVR technology has the potential to revolutionise modern surgical training and optimise surgical performance in a cost-efficient manner, with current evidence demonstrating favourable immediate skill acquisition and transfer.

Conclusions

Extended reality technologies have a myriad of potential applications in orthopaedic surgery. Further research is needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of its incorporation into training programmes.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 3D Systems (2019, October) The Touch Haptic Device.

  2. Aim F, Lonjon G, Hannouche D, Nizard R (2016) Effectiveness of virtual reality training in orthopaedic surgery. Arthroscopy 32:224–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson DD, Long S, Thomas GW, Putnam MD, Bechtold JE, Karam MD (2016) Objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) does not assess the quality of the surgical result effectively. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:874–881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Arealis G, Holton J, Rodrigues JB, Sagkrioti M, Snow M, Hamlet M, Levy O (2016) How to build your simple and cost-effective arthroscopic skills simulator. Arthrosc Tech Elsevier 5:e1039–e1047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Arroyo-Berezowsky C, Jorba-Elguero P, Altamirano-Cruz M, Quinzaños-Fresnedo J (2019) Usefulness of immersive virtual reality simulation during femoral nail application in an orthopedic fracture skills course. J Musculoskeletal Surg Res Medknow 3:326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Atesok K, Satava RM, Van Heest A, Hogan MV, Pedowitz RA, Fu FH, Sitnikov I, Marsh JL, Hurwitz SR (2016) Retention of skills after simulation- based training in orthopaedic surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 24:505–514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Azuma RT (1997) A survey of augmented reality. Presence 6:355–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bartlett JD, Lawrence JE, Stewart ME, Nakano N, Khanduja V (2018) Does virtual reality simulation have a role in training trauma and orthopaedic surgeons? Bone Joint J 100-B:559–565

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bartlett JD, Lawrence JE, Yan M, Guevel B, Stewart ME, Audenaert E, Khanduja V (2020) The learning curves of a validated virtual reality hip arthroscopy simulator. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140:761–767

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Berend ME, Lackey WG, Carter JL (2018) Outpatient-focused joint arthroplasty is the future: the midwest center for joint replacement experience. J Arthroplasty 33:1647–1648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Berend ME, Ritter MA, Meding JB, Faris PM, Keating EM, Redelman R, Faris GW, Davis KE (2004) The Chetranjan Ranawat Award: tibial component failure mechanisms in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:26–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bernard JA, Dattilo JR, Srikumaran U, Zikria BA, Jain A, LaPorte DM (2016) Reliability and validity of 3 methods of assessing orthopedic resident skill in shoulder surgery. J Surg Educ 73:1020–1025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brooks FP (1988) Grasping reality through illusion—interactive graphics serving science. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp 1–11

  14. Cannon WD, Nicandri GT, Reinig K, Mevis H, Wittstein J (2014) Evaluation of skill level between trainees and community orthopaedic surgeons using a virtual reality arthroscopic knee simulator. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:e57-1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Clarke E (2021) Virtual reality simulation—the future of orthopaedic training? A systematic review and narrative analysis. Adv Simul 6:2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Committee on Virtual Reality Research and Development (1995) Virtual Reality: Scientific and Technological Challenges. Durlach NI, Mavor AS (eds) National Academy Press, Washington, DC

  17. Digioia AM, Jaramaz B, Nikou C, Labarca RS, Moody JE, Colgan BD (2000) Surgical navigation for total hip replacement with the use of hipnav. Oper Tech Orthop 10:3–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gharaibeh M, Chen D, MacDessi S (2018) Soft tissue balancing in total knee arthroplasty using sensor-guided assessment: is there a learning curve? ANZ J Surg 88:497–501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Goh GS-H, Liow MHL, Lim WS-R, Tay DK-J, Yeo SJ, Tan MH (2016) Accelerometer-based navigation is as accurate as optical computer navigation in restoring the joint line and mechanical axis after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 31:92–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Goh GS-H, Liow MHL, Tay DK-J, Lo N-N, Yeo S-J, Tan M-H (2018) Accelerometer-based and computer-assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty: a reduction in mechanical axis outliers does not lead to improvement in functional outcomes or quality of life when compared to conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33:379–385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gregory TM, Gregory J, Sledge J, Allard R, Mir O (2018) Surgery guided by mixed reality: presentation of a proof of concept. Acta Orthop 89:480–483

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Harper KD, Brown LD, Lambert BS, Clyburn TA, Incavo SJ (2019) Technical obstacles in total knee arthroplasty learning: a steps breakdown evaluation. JAAOS 3:e19.00062

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hoerlesberger N, Glehr M, Amerstorfer F, Hauer G, Leithner A, Sadoghi P (2021) Residents’ learning curve of total knee arthroplasty based on radiological outcome parameters: a retrospective comparative study. J Arthroplasty Elsevier 36:154–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hooper J, Tsiridis E, Feng JE, Poulsides L, Macaulay W, The NYU Virtual Reality Consortium (2019) Virtual reality simulation facilitates resident training in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 34:2278–2283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Huijbregts HJTAM, Khan RJK, Sorensen E, Fick DP, Haebich S (2016) Patient-specific instrumentation does not improve radiographic alignment or clinical outcomes after total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Acta Orthop 87:386–394

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. James HK, Chapman AW, Pattison GTR, Griffin DR, Fisher JD (2019) Systematic review of the current status of cadaveric simulation for surgical training. Br J Surg 106:1726–1734

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Jun Y, Park S (2011) Polygon-based 3D surgical planning system for hip operation. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 12:157–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kazarian GS, Lawrie CM, Barrack TN, Donaldson MJ, Miller GM, Haddad FS, Barrack RL (2019) The impact of surgeon volume and training status on implant alignment in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 101:1713–1723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kishimoto Y (2020) Dislocation is a leading cause of decreased survival rate in primary total hip arthroplasty performed by low-volume surgeons: long-term retrospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty 5:3237–3241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Klug A, Gramlich Y, Rudert M, Drees P, Hoffmann R, Weißenberger M, Kutzner KP (2020) The projected volume of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty will place an immense burden on future health care systems over the next 30 years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kohls-Gatzoulis JA, Regehr G, Hutchison C (2004) Teaching cognitive skills improves learning in surgical skills courses: a blinded, prospective, randomized study. Can J Surg 47:277–283

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Korteling JEH, Oprins EAPBE, Kallen VL (2009) Measurement of effectiveness for training simulations. NATO RTO SAS-095:1–12

  33. LeBlanc J, Hutchison C, Hu Y, Donnon T (2013) A comparison of orthopaedic resident performance on surgical fixation of an ulnar fracture using virtual reality and synthetic models. J Bone Joint Surg Ovid Technol (Wolters Kluwer Health) 95:e60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lionberger D, Wattenbarger L, Conlon C, Walker TJ (2020) Factors affecting aseptic loosening in primary total knee replacements: an in vitro study. J Exp Orthopaed 7:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Logishetty K, Gofton W, Rudran B, Beaule P, Cobb J (2020) Fully immersive virtual reality for total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 102:e27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lohre R, Athwal GS, Warner JP, Goel DP (2020) The evolution of virtual reality in shoulder and elbow surgery. JSES Int 4:215–223

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Lohre R, Bois A, Athwal GS, Goel DP, (CSES) TCS and ES, (2020) Improved complex skill acquisition by immersive virtual reality training: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 102:e26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lohre R, Bois A, Pollock J, Lapner P, McIlquham K, Athwal GS, (CSES) TCS and ES, Goel DP, (2020) Effectiveness of immersive virtual reality for orthopaedic surgical skills and knowledge acquisition: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA Netw Open 3:e2031217

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Lohre R, Warner JJP, Athwal GS, Goel DP (2020) The evolution of virtual reality in shoulder and elbow surgery. JSES International 4:215–223

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Lohre R, Warner JJP, Goel DP (2021) Shoulder surgeon perspective of surgical device representatives: a multi-national survey. JSES Int 5:158–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mason JB, Fehring TK, Estok R, Banel D, Fahrbach K (2007) Meta-Analysis of alignment outcomes in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplasty 22:1097–1106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. McCloy R, Stone R (2001) Virtual reality in surgery. BMJ Br Med J Publ Group 323:912–915

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Medacta (2019, October) NextAR Product Brochure.

  44. Middleton RM, Alvand A, Garfjeld Roberts P, Hargrove C, Kirby G, Rees JL (2017) Simulation-based training platforms for arthroscopy: a randomized comparison of virtual reality learning to benchtop learning. Arthroscopy. J Arthrosc Relat Surg 33:996–1003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Middleton RM, Baldwin MJ, Akhtar K, Alvand A, Rees JL (2016) Which global rating scale? a comparison of the ASSET, BAKSSS, and IGARS for the assessment of simulated arthroscopic skills. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:75–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Minekus JPJ, Rozing PM, Nelissen R, Dankelman J (2005) Identifying error pathways during elbow and knee replacements. Clin Orthopaed Relat Res 437:121–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Morgan M, Aydin A, Salih A, Robati S, Ahmed K (2017) Current status of simulation-based training tools in orthopedic surgery: a systematic review. J Surg Educ Elsevier 74:698–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Novak EJ, Silverstein MD, Bozic KJ (2007) The cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 89:2389–2397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ogawa H, Hasegawa S, Tsukada S, Matsubara M (2018) A pilot study of augmented reality technology applied to the acetabular cup placement during total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 33:1833–1837

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Palter VN, Grantcharov TP (2010) Simulation in surgical education. CMAJ 182:1191–1196

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Pedowitz RA, Marsh LJ (2012) Motor skills training in orthopaedic surgery: a paradigm shift toward a simulation-based educational curriculum. JAAOS 20:407–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Putnam M, Kinnucan E, Adams J, Van Heest A, Nuckley D, Shanedling J (2015) On orthopedic surgical skill prediction-the limited value of traditional testing. J Surg Educ 72:458–470

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Rouleau DM, Bedard R, Canet F, Petit Y (2019) Teaching simulated arthroscopic bankart repair: residents’ assessment at the annual shoulder Course. Canad J Surg 62:227–234

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Schwartz AJ, Bozic KJ, Etzioni DA (2019) Value-based total hip and knee arthroplasty: a framework for understanding the literature. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 27:1–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. de Steiger RN, Liu Y-L, Graves SE (2015) Computer navigation for total knee arthroplasty reduces revision rate for patients less than sixty-five years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:635–642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ten Cate O (2017) Competency-based postgraduate medical education: past, present and future. GMS J Med Educ German Med Sci 34:Doc69

    Google Scholar 

  57. Thienpont E, Schwab PE, Fennema P (2014) A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-specific instrumentation for improving alignment of the components in total knee replacement. The Bone & Joint Journal 96-B:1052–1061

  58. Tsukada S, Ogawa H, Nishino M, Kurosaka K, Hirasawa N (2019) Augmented reality-based navigation system applied to tibial bone resection in total knee arthroplasty. J Exp Orthopaed 6:44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Vaughan N, Dubey VN, Wainwright TW, Middleton RG (2016) A review of virtual reality based training simulators for orthopaedic surgery. Med Eng Phys 38:59–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Verhey JT, Haglin JM, Verhey EM, Hartigan DE (2020) Virtual, augmented, and mixed reality applications in orthopedic surgery. Int J Med Robot 16:e2067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Weech S, Kenny S, Barnett-Cowan M (2019) Presence and cybersickness in virtual reality are negatively related: a review. Front Psychol 10:158

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Wynn BO, Smalley R, Cordasco KM (2013) Does it cost more to train residents or to replace them?: a look at the costs and benefits of operating graduate medical education programs. Rand health quarterly The RAND Corporation 3

  63. Yari SS, Jandhyala CK, Sharareh B, Athiviraham A, Shybut TB (2018) Efficacy of a virtual arthroscopic simulator for orthopaedic surgery residents by year in training. Orthopaed J Sports Med USA 6:2325967118810176

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Graham S. Goh and Ryan Lohre have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Graham S. Goh & Javad Parvizi

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Ryan Lohre & Danny P. Goel

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of British Columbia, 321 Water Street, Suite 500, Vancouver, BC, V6B 1B8, Canada

    Danny P. Goel

Authors
  1. Graham S. Goh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ryan Lohre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Javad Parvizi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Danny P. Goel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danny P. Goel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

J.P. reports equity related to PrecisionOS Technology, outside the submitted work. D.P.G. reports personal fees from PrecisionOS Technology, outside the submitted work. G.S.G. and R.L. have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

IRB approval was not required for this review article.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required for this review article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goh, G.S., Lohre, R., Parvizi, J. et al. Virtual and augmented reality for surgical training and simulation in knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 141, 2303–2312 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04037-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04037-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation