Alternatives to Navigation
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.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Brisson G, Kanade T, DiGioia AM (2003) Precision handheld sculpting of bone. CAOS, Marbella, Spain, pp 36–37Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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.Heining SM et al. (2004) Augmented reality and in-situ-visualization in thoracoscopic spine surgery. CAOS International, Chicago, pp 335–357Google Scholar
- 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.Mabrey J, Gillogly SD, Kasser JR et al. (2002) Virtual reality simulation of arthroscopy of the knee. Arthroscopy 18: E28Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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
- 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.Witherspoon L (2004) ROBONAV-Robotic system for minimally invasive surgery. Robotic and navigation. International symposium. Nuremberg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
- 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