Alternatives to Navigation

  • M. A. Hafez
  • B. Jaramaz
  • A. M. DiGioiaIII

Conclusion

While the surgical navigation has become a mainstream CAOS technology, there are other technologies that encompass a wide spectrum of applications and devices. Many of these are technically capable and potentially useful tools that can revolutionize the surgical management of orthopaedic conditions. However, the challenges that remain for the clinicians and developers of these systems are not only to understand what these new technologies and tools can accomplish, but also to understand their limitations. It is expected that these systems will gradually evolve in future to become more user friendly, less invasive and less expensive. Eventually these assisting technologies will permit the development of new generation of surgical procedures that surgeons are not capable of performing today because of surgical limitations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Blackwell M, Nikou C, DiGioia AM III, Kanade T (2000) An Image Overlay system for medical data visualization. Med Image Anal 4: 67–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brisson G, Kanade T, DiGioia AM (2003) Precision handheld sculpting of bone. CAOS, Marbella, Spain, pp 36–37Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cannon WD, Eckhoff DG, Garrett WE Jr, Hunter RE, Sweeney HJ (2006) Report of a group developing a virtual reality simulator for arthroscopic surgery of the knee joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res 442: 21–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de-la-Fuente M, Ohnsorge J, Bast P, Wirtz DC, Radermacher K (2002) Minaro-new approaches for minimally invasive roentgen image based hip prosthesis revision. Biomed Tech (Berl) 47 (Suppl 1): 44–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DiGioia AM, III et al. (1998) Image guided navigation system to measure intraoperatively acetabular implant alignment-The Otto Aufranc Award. Clin Orthop Relat Res 355: 8–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Green PE, Piantanida T, Hill JW, Simon IB, Satava RM (1991) Telepresence: Dexterous procedures in a virtual operating field. Am Surg 57: 192Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grutzner PA, Zheng G, Langlotz U (2004) C-arm based navigation in total hip arthroplasty-background and clinical experience. Injury 35 (Suppl 1): S-A90–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hafez MA, Chelule KL, Seedhom BB, Sherman KP (2006) Computerassisted total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific templating. Clin Orthop Relat Res 444: 184–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hafez MA, Jaramaz B, DiGioia AM III (2006) Computer Assisted Surgery of the Knee: An overview. In: Insall JN, Scott N (eds) Surgery of the Knee, 4th edn. Churchill Livingston, Philadelphia, pp 1655–1674Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haider H et al. (2004) Freehand navigation cutting for TKA surgery without jigs: Simulation of bone saw cutting. CAOS International, Chicago, pp 69–70Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heining SM et al. (2004) Augmented reality and in-situ-visualization in thoracoscopic spine surgery. CAOS International, Chicago, pp 335–357Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heng P, Cheng C, Wong TT, Wu W, Xu Y, Xie Y, Chui YP, Chan KM, Leung KS (2006) Virtual reality techniques. Application to anatomic visualization and orthopaedics training. Clin Orthop Relat Res 442: 5–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jakopec M, Harris SJ et al. (2001) The first clinical application of a «hands-on» robotic knee surgery system. Comput Aided Surg 6: 329–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jaramaz B, Nikou C, DiGioia AM III (1997) A pre-operative computerized range of motion simulator for total hip replacement. 43rd Annual Meeting, Orthopaedic Research Society, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mabrey J, Gillogly SD, Kasser JR et al. (2002) Virtual reality simulation of arthroscopy of the knee. Arthroscopy 18: E28Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCarthy AD, Moody L, Waterworth AR, Bickerstaff DR (2006) Passive haptics in a knee arthroscopy simulator: is it valid for core skills training? Clin Orthop Relat Res 442: 13–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paul HA, Bargar WL, Mettelstadt BD, Musits B (1992) Development of a surgical robot for cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 285: 57–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Picard F, Moody JE, DiGioia AM I, Jaramaz BJ (2004) Clinical classification of CAOS systems. In: DiGioia AM I, Jaramaz BJ, Picard F, Nolte L (2004) Computer and robotic assisted knee and hip surgery ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 43–48Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Plaskos C et al. (2004) PRAXITELES: A universal bone mounted robot for image free knee surgery-Report on First cadaver trials. CAOS International, Chicago, pp 67–68Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pott PP, Scharf HP, Schwarz ML (2005) Today’s state of the art in surgical robotics. Comput Aided Surg 10(2): 101–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Radermacher K, Portheine F, Anton M, Zimolong A, Kaspers G, Rau G, Staudte H-W (1998) Computer assisted orthopaedic surgery with image-based individual templates. Clin Orthop 354: 28–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ritschl P Jr, Fuiko R, Zettl R, Kotten B (2004) The Galileo system for implantation of total knee arthroplasty. In: Stiehl JB, Konermann WH, Haaker RG (eds) Navigation and robotics in total joint and spine surgery. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo, pp 282–286Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seel MJ, Hafez MA, Eckman K, Jaramaz B, Davidson D, DiGioia AM (2006) 3-D planning and virtual X-ray in revision hip arthroplasty for instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 442: 35–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sherman KP, Ward JW, Wills DP (2001) Surgical trainee assessment using a VE knee arthroscopy training system (VE-KATS): experimental results. Stud Health Technol Inform 81: 465–470PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Siebert W, Mai S, Kober R, Heeckt PF (2002) Technique and first clinical results of robot-assisted total knee replacement. Knee 9(3): 173–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stulberg SD, Loan P, Sarin V (2002) Computer-assisted navigation in total knee replacement: results of an initial experience in thirty-five patients. J Bone Joint Surg Incorporated 84-A (Suppl 2): 90–98Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Witherspoon L (2004) ROBONAV-Robotic system for minimally invasive surgery. Robotic and navigation. International symposium. Nuremberg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wolf A, Jaramaz B, DiGioia AM III (2005) MBARS: mini bone-attached robotic system for joint arthroplasty. Int J Med Robot Comput Ass Surg 1(2): 101–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yang Y et al. (2003) Secure an image-based simulated telesurgery system. Institute of Infocomm Research, Singapore. Available at: http://icsd. i2r. org. sg/publications/BaoFeng_2003_telesurgery. pdGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. Hafez
    • 1
    • 2
  • B. Jaramaz
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • A. M. DiGioiaIII
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.The Institute for Computer Assisted Orthopaedic SurgeryPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Western Pennsylvania HospitalPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Institute for Computer Assisted Orthopaedic SurgeryPittsburghUSA
  4. 4.The Western Pennsylvania Hospital and Robotics InstitutePittsburghUSA
  5. 5.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  6. 6.University of Pittsburgh School of MedicinePittsburghUSA
  7. 7.Renaissance OrthopaedicsPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations