Advertisement

Computer-Aided Orthopedic Surgery: Incremental Shift or Paradigm Change?

  • Leo Joskowicz
  • Eric J. Hazan
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 1093)

Abstract

Computer-aided orthopedic surgery (CAOS) is now about 25 years old. Unlike neurosurgery, computer-aided surgery has not become the standard of care in orthopedic surgery. In this paper, we provide the technical and clinical context raised by this observation in an attempt to elucidate the reasons for this state of affairs. We start with a brief outline of the history of CAOS, review the main CAOS technologies, and describe how they are evaluated. We then identify some of the current publications in the field and present the opposing views on their clinical impact and their acceptance by the orthopedic community worldwide. We focus on total knee replacement surgery as a case study and present current clinical results and contrasting opinions on CAOS technologies. We then discuss the challenges and opportunities for research in medical image analysis in CAOS and in musculoskeletal radiology. We conclude with a suggestion that while CAOS acceptance may be more moderate than that of other fields in surgery, it still has a place in the arsenal of useful tools available to orthopedic surgeons.

Keywords

Computer-aided orthopedic surgery Image-guided surgery Medical robotics 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This chapter was modified from the paper published by our group in Medical Image Analysis (Joskowicz and Hazan 2016; 33:84–90). The related contents are reused with permission.

References

  1. 1.
    Lorensen WE, Cline HE (1987) Marching cubes: a high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput Graph 21(4):163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Taylor RH, Mittelstadt BD, Paul HA, Hanson W, Kazanzides P, Zuhars JF, Williamson B, Musits BL, Glassman E, Bargar WL (1994) An image-directed robotic system for precise orthopaedic surgery. IEEE Trans Robot Automat 10(3):261–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lavallee S, Sautot P, Troccaz J, Cinquin P, Merloz P (1995) Computer-assisted spine surgery: a technique for accurate transpedicular screw fixation using CT data and a 3D optical localizer. Comput Aided Surg 1:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nolte LP, Visarius H, Arm E, Langlotz F (1995) Computer-aided fixation of spinal implants. J Image Guid Surg 1(2):88–93CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Joskowicz L, Milgrom C, Simkin A, Tockus L, Yaniv Z (1999) FRACAS: a system for computer-aided image-guided long bone fracture surgery. Comput Aided Surg 3(6):271–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 Ortho Relat Res 54: 28–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shoham M, Lieberman IH, Benzel EC, Zehavi E, Zilberstein B, Roffman M, Bruskin A, Fridlander A, Joskowicz L, Brink-Danan S, Knoller N (2007) Robotic assisted spinal surgery: from concept to clinical practice. Comput Aided Surg 12(2): 105–115PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liebergall M, Joskowicz L, Mosheiff R (2015) Computer-aided orthopaedic surgery in skeletal trauma. In: Bucholz R, Heckman J (eds) Rockwood and green’s fractures in adults, 8th edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 575–607Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zheng G, Li S (2016) Computational radiology for orthopaedic interventions. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gandhi R, Marchie A, Farrokhyar F, Mahomed N (2009) Computer navigation in total hip replacement: a meta-analysis. Int Orthop 33(3):593–597CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der List JP, Chawla H, Joskowicz L, Pearle AD (2016) Current state of computer navigation and robotics in unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(11):3482–3495CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aoude AA, Fortin M, Figueiredo F, Jarzem P, Ouellet J, Weber MH (2015) Methods to determine pedicle screw placement accuracy in spine surgery: a systematic review. Eur Spine J 24:990–1004CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ASTM International (2010) ASTM standard F2554-10: standard practice for measurement of positional accuracy of computer assisted surgical systems. ASTM International, West Conshohocken www.astm.org Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cartiaux O, Jenny J-Y, Joskowicz L (2016) Accuracy in orthopaedic surgery assisted by navigation systems, robots and 3D printers: how is it defined, how could It be measured experimentally, and how should it be analyzed from a clinical perspective? J Bone Bone Surg 99(e39):1–8Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Picard F, Clarke J, Deep K, Gregory A (2014) Computer assisted knee replacement surgery: is the movement mainstream? Ortho Muscular Syst 3(2):1000153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Walker R, Monda M, Chauhan S (2010) Focus on: navigation for TKR. J Bone Joint SurgGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kovler I, Joskowicz L, Kronman A, Weill Y, Salavarrieta J (2015) Haptic computer-assisted patient specific preoperative planning for orthopaedic fracture surgery. Int J Comput Aided Radiol Surg 10(10):1535–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ritacco LE, Milano FE, Chao E (2016) Computer-assisted musculoskeletal surgery: thinking and executing in 3D. ISBN: 978-3-319-12942-6, Print, 978-3-319-12943-3, Online Book, Springer.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    BCC Research (2015) Medical robotics and computer aided surgery report, http://www.bccresearch.com

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringThe Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Traumatology and Emergency DepartmentsInstituto Nacional de RehabilitacionMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations