Advertisement

The Mako Robotic System for Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

  • Mustafa Citak
  • Andrew D. Pearle
  • Daniel O. Kendoff

Abstract

Robotic systems have been used in surgery since 1980, while the integration of robotic systems in orthopedic surgery began with the use of RoboDoc (Curexo Technology Corporation, Fremont, CA, USA) for the planning and performing of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) in 1992. The use of robotic technology has facilitated minimally invasive surgery in some cases, which has gained popularity in patients (Banks 2009). Another advantage of robotic surgery is the higher precision and accuracy compared to conventional techniques, which is of enormous importance especially in spinal surgery (Devito et al. 2010).

Keywords

Robotic System Tibial Component Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Robotic Technology Computer Navigation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Banks SA (2009) Haptic robotics enable a systems approach to design of a minimally invasive modular knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 38:23–27Google Scholar
  2. Bargar WL (2007) Robots in orthopaedic surgery: past, present, and future. Clinl Orthop Relat Res 463:31–36Google Scholar
  3. Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Mallory TH, Adams JB, Groseth KL (2005) Early failure of minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is associated with obesity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:60–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger RA, Nedeff DD, Barden RM et al (1999) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clinical experience at 6- to 10-year follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 36750–60Google Scholar
  5. Buckup K, Linke LC, Hahne V (2007) Minimally invasive implantation and computer navigation for a unicondylar knee system. Orthopedics 30:66–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cobb J, Henckel J, Gomes P et al (2006) Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective, randomised controlled study of the acrobot system. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:188–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collier MB, Eickmann TH, Sukezaki F, McAuley JP, Engh GA (2006) Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21:108–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coon TM (2009) Integrating robotic technology into the operating room. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 38:7–9Google Scholar
  9. Davies BL, Rodriguez y Baena FM, Barrett AR et al (2007) Robotic control in knee joint replacement surgery. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H. J Eng Med 221:71–80Google Scholar
  10. Devito DP, Kaplan L, Dietl R et al (2010) Clinical acceptance and accuracy assessment of spinal implants guided with SpineAssist surgical robot: retrospective study. Spine 35:2109–2115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Furnes O, Espehaug B, Lie SA, et al (2007) Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:519–525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haaker RG, Wojciechowski M, Patzer P, Willburger RE, Senkal M, Engelhardt M (2006) Minimally invasive unicondylar knee placement with computer navigation. Orthopaede 34:1073–1079Google Scholar
  13. Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004a) Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 423:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004b) Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:506–511Google Scholar
  15. Insall J, Aglietti P (1980) A five to seven-year follow-up of unicondylar arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 62:1329–1337PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jakopec M, Harris SJ, Rodriguez y Baena F et al (2001) The first clinical application of a »hands-on« robotic knee surgery system. Comput Aided Surg 6:329–339PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Jeer PJ, Keene GC, Gill P (2004) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an intermediate report of survivorship after the introduction of a new system with analysis of failures. Knee 11:369–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koskinen E, Paavolainen P, Eskelinen A et al (2009) Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with Miller-Galante II prosthesis: mid-term clinical and radiographic results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009; 129:617–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lonner JH, John TK, Conditt MA (2010) Robotic arm-assisted UKA improves tibial component alignment: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:141–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mariani EM, Bourne MH, Jackson RT, Jackson ST, Jones P (2007) Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22:81–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Molfetta L, Caldo D (2008) Computer navigation versus conventional implantation for varus knee total arthroplasty: a case-control study at 5 years follow-up. Knee 15:75–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ohdera T, Tokunaga J, Kobayashi A (2001) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for lateral gonarthrosis: midterm results. J Arthroplasty 16:196–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pearle AD, O’Loughlin PF, Kendoff DO (2010) Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25:230–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ridgeway SR, McAuley JP, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA (2002) The effect of alignment of the knee on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 84:351–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schulz AP, Seide K, Queitsch C, et al (2007) Results of total hip replacement using the Robodoc surgical assistant system: clinical outcome and evaluation of complications for 97 procedures. MRCAS 3:301–306PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Sinha RK (2009) Outcomes of robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 38:20–22Google Scholar
  27. Suggs JF, Li G, Park SE et al (2006) Knee biomechanics after UKA and its relation to the ACL – a robotic investigation. J Orthop Res 24:588–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Swank ML, Alkire M, Conditt M, Lonner JH (2009) Technology and cost-effectiveness in knee arthroplasty: computer navigation and robotics. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 38:32–36Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mustafa Citak
    • 1
  • Andrew D. Pearle
    • 2
  • Daniel O. Kendoff
    • 3
  1. 1.HELIOS ENDO Clinic HamburgHamburg
  2. 2.Department of OrthopedicsHospital for Special SurgeryNYUSA
  3. 3.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryENDO Clinic HamburgHamburg

Personalised recommendations