Advertisement

How to Teach Total Knee Reconstruction Using Computer-Assisted Navigation

  • S. David Stulberg
Chapter

Abstract

The original goals of applying computer-assisted surgical techniques to knee reconstructive procedures were to (1) increase the accuracy with which implants and limbs were aligned and soft tissues balanced and (2) improve the reliability with which the procedures were performed (i.e., reduce the incidence of alignment and soft-tissue balancing “outliers”) [18, 80]. These goals were based upon the well-established observations that the clinical and functional outcomes of knee reconstructive procedures and the durability of these procedures were correlated with the accuracy of implant and limb alignment and the quality of soft-tissue balancing [1, 3, 4, 20, 21, 26, 30, 38–40, 49, 50, 59, 61, 62, 68, 69, 75, 78, 84–86, 89].

Keywords

Operating Room Surgical Skill Surgical Simulator Limb Alignment Knee Reconstruction 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Aglietti P, Buzzi R (1988) Posteriorly stabilized total-condylar knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 70(2):211–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson KC, Buehler KC, Markel DC (2005) Computer assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty: comparison with conventional methods. J Arthroplasty 20(7 Suppl 3):132–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ayers DC, Dennis DA, Johanson NA et al (1997) Common complications of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone J Surg Am 2(79A):278–311Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bargren JH, Blaha JD, Freeman MAR (1983) Alignment in total knee arthroplasty: correlated biomechanical and clinical observations. Clin Orthop 173:178–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bathis H, Perlick L, Tingart M et al (2004) Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. A comparison of computer-assisted surgery with conventional technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:682–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bauwens K, Matthes G, Wich M et al (2007) Navigated total knee replacement. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:261–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bohling U, Schamberger H, Grittner U et al (2005) Computerised and technical navigation in total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol 6:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bolognesi M, Hofmann A (2005) Computer navigation versus standard instrumentation for TKA: a single-surgeon experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:162–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cauraugh JH, Martin M, Martin KK (1999) Modeling surgical expertise for motor sill acquisition. Am J Surg 177:331–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chauhan SK, Scott RG, Breidahl W et al (2004) Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty versus a conventional jig-based technique. A randomized, prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:372–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chin PL, Yang KY, Yeo SJ et al (2005) Randomized control trial comparing radiographic total knee arthroplasty implant placement using computer navigation versus conventional technique. J Arthroplasty 20:618–626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Pullen C et al (2005) Computer-assisted technique versus intramedullary and extramedullary alignment systems in total knee replacement: a radiological comparison. Acta Orthop Belg 71:L703–L709Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cossey AJ, Spriggins AJ (2005) The use of computer-assisted surgical navigation to prevent malalignment in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20:29–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Darzi A, Mackay S (2001) Assessment of surgical competence. Qual Health Care 10(Suppl 2):ii64–ii69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Datta V, Mackay SD, Mandalia M et al (2001) The use of electromagnetic motion tracking analysis to objectively measure open surgical skill in the laboratory-based model. J Am Coll Surg 193:479–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Daubresse F, Vajeu C, Loquet J (2005) Total knee arthroplasty with conventional or navigated technique: comparison of the learning curves in a community hospital. Acta Orthop Belg 71:710–713PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Decking R, Markmann Y, Fuchs J et al (2005) Leg axis after computer navigated total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized trial comparing computer-navigated and manual implantation. J Arthroplasty 20:282–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Delp SL, Stulberg SD, Davies B, et al. (1998) Computer assisted knee replacement. Clin Orthop (354):49–56Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dillon JM, Clarke JV, Picard F et al (2007) Computer assisted navigation systems have a valuable teaching role in total knee arthroplasty. Poster. AAOS, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dorr LD, Boiardo RA (1997) Technical ­considerations in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 205:5–11Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ecker ML, Lotke PA, Windsor RE et al (1987) Long-term results after total condylar knee arthroplasty. Significance of radiolucent lines. Clin Orthop 216:151–158PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eichorn H-J (2004) Image-free navigation in ACL replacement with the OrthoPilot System. In: Steihl JB, Konermann WH, Haaker RG (eds) Navigation and robotics in total joint and spine surgery. Springer, Berlin, pp 387–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ellis RE, Rudan JF, Harrison MM (2004) Computer-assisted high tibial osteotomies. In: DiGioia AM, Jaramaz B, Picard R, Nolte PL (eds) Computer and robotic assisted knee and hip surgery. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 197–212Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ericsson KA (1996) The acquisition of expert performance: an introduction to some of the issues. In: Ericsson KA (ed) The road to excellence: the acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 1–50Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ericsson KA (2004) Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med 79(Suppl 10):S70–S81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fehring TK, Odum S, Wl G et al (2001) Early failures in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 392:315–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fitts PM, Posner MI (1967) Human performance. Brooks/Cole, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC et al (2004) Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic ­surgery. Ann Surg 240:518–528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gallagher AG, Cates CU (2004) Approval of virtual reality training for carotid stenting: what this means for procedural-based medicine. JAMA 292:3024–3026PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gonzalez MH, Mekhail AO (2005) The failed total knee arthroplasty: evaluation and etiology. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 12:436–446Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Grantcharov TP, Kristiansen VBG, Bendix J et al (2004) Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. Br J Surg 91:146–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Grober ED, Hamstra SJ, Wanzel KR et al (2004) The educational impact of bench model fidelity on the acquisition of technical skill: the use of clinically relevant outcome measures. Ann Surg 240:374–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Haaker RG, Stockhelm M, Kamp M et al (2005) Computer-assisted navigation increases precision of component placement in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 433:152–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR (2002) Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med 137:511–520PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Haluck RS, Krummel TM (2000) Computers and virtual reality for surgical education in the 21stcentury. Arch Surg 135:786–792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Harnandez-Vaquero D, Suarez-Vazquez A, Garcia-Sandoval MA (2004) Computer-assisted implant in knee endoprosthesis with a wireless system. Prospective comparative study with conventional technique (abstract). J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(Suppl 3):227. Abstract nr 01026Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hart R, Janecek M, Chaker A (2003) Total knee arthroplasty implanted with and without kinematic navigation. Int Orthop 27:366–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hsu HP, Garg A, Walker PS (1989) Effect on knee component alignment on tibial load distribution with clinical correlation. Clin Orthop 248:135–144PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jeffcote B, Shakespeare D (2003) Varus/valgus alignment of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty. Knee 10(3):243–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA (1991) Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73B:709–714Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jenny JY, Boeri C (2002) Unicompartmental knee prosthesis. A case-control comparative study of two types of instrumentation with a five year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 17:1016020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jenny JY, Clemens U, Kohler S et al (2005) Consistency of implantation of a total knee arthroplasty with a non-image-based navigation system: a case-control study of 235 cases compared with 235 conventionally implanted prostheses. J Arthroplasty 20:832–839PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Keen G, Simpson D, Kalirajah Y et al (2006) Limb alignment in computer-assisted minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:44–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kim SJ, MacDonald M, Hernandez J et al (2005) Computer assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty: improved coronal alignment. J Arthoplasty 20(7 Suppl 3):123–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kinzel V, Scaddan M, Bradley B et al (2004) Varus/valgus alignment of the femur in total knee arthroplasty. Can accuracy be improved by pre-operative CT scanning? Knee 11(3):197–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Klein GR, Austn MS, Smith EB et al (2006) Total knee arthroplasty using computer-assisted navigation in patients with deformities of the femur and tibia. J Arthroplasty 21:284–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kopta JA (1971) The development of motor skills in orthopaedic education. Clin Orthop 75:80–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Koyonos L, Granieri M, Stulberg SD (2005) At what steps in performance of a TKA do errors occur when manual instrumentation is used. Presented at the annual meeting of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Laskin RS (1984) Alignment of the total knee components. Orthopedics 7:62Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Laskin RS (1990) Total condylar knee replacement in patients who have rheumatoid arthritis. A ten year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72A:529–535Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lossing AG, Hatswell EM, Gilas T et al (1992) A technical-skills course for 1st year residents in general surgery: a descriptive study. Can J Surg 35:536–540PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Martin JA, Regehr G, Reznick R et al (1997) Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 84:273–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Matsumoto T, Tsumura N, Kurosaka M et al (2004) Prosthetic alignment and sizing in computer assisted total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 28:282–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Matziolis G, Krocker D, Weiss U et al (2007) A prospective, randomized study of computer-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty. Three-dimensional evaluation of implant alignment and rotation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:236–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Miehlke RK, Clemens U, Jens J-H et al (2001) Navigation in knee arthroplasty: preliminary clinical experience and prospective comparative study in comparison with conventional technique. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 139:109–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Noble PC, Sugano N, Johnston JD et al (2003) Computer simulation: how can it help the surgeon optimize implant position? Clin Orthop (417):242-252. ReviewGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Oberst M, Bertsch C, Wurstlin S et al (2003) CT analysis of leg alignment after conventional vs. navigated knee prosthesis implantation. Initial results of a controlled, prospective, and randomized study. Unfallchirurg 106:941–948. (German)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Perlick L, Bathis H, Tingart M et al (2004) Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement with a nonimage-based navigation system. Int Orthop 28:193–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Petersen TL, Engh GA (1988) Radiographic assessment of knee alignment after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 3:67–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Plaweski S, Cazal J, Roseli P et al (2006) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using navigation: a comparative study on 60 patients. Am J Sports Med 34:542–552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ranawat CS, Boachie-Adjei O (1988) Survivorship analysis and results of total condylar knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 226:6–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rand JA, Coventry MB (1988) Ten-year evaluation of geometric total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 232:168–173PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Regehr G, MacRae H, Reznick RK et al (1998) Comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global rating scales for assessing performance on an OSCE-format examination. Acad Med 73:993–997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Reznick RK (1993) Teaching and testing technical skills. Am J Surg 165:358–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Reznick RK, MacRae H (2006) Teaching surgical skills-changes in the wind. N Engl J Med 355:2664–2669PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Reznick R, Regehr G, MacRae H, Martin J et al (1997) Testing technical skill via an innovative “bench station” examination. Am J Surg 173:226–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Risucci D, Cohen JA, Garbus JE et al (2001) The effects of practice and instruction on speed and accuracy during resident acquisition of simulated laparoscopic skills. Curr Surg 58:230–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM et al (1994) Post-operative alignment of total knee replacement. Its effect on survival. Clin Orthop 299:153–156PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ritter M, Merbst WA, Keating EM et al (1991) Radiolucency at the bone-cement interface in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76A:60–65Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Saragaglia D, Picard F, Chaussard C et al (2001) Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty: comparison with a conventional procedure: results of 50 cases in a prospective randomized study. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 87:18–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Scallon SE, Fairholm DJ, Cochrane DD et al (1992) Evaluation of the operating room as a surgical teaching venue. Can J Surg 35:173–176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Scott DJ, Bergen PC, Rege RV et al (2004) Laparoscopic training on bench model simulators: a randomized controlled trial evaluating the durability of technical skill. J Urol 99:33–37Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Seon JK, Song EK (2005) Functional impact of navigation-assisted minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 28(10 Suppl):s1251–s1254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA et al (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236:458–463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH et al (2002) Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop 404:7–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Skowronski J, Bielecki M, Hermanowicz K et al (2005) The radiological outcomes of total knee arthroplasty using computer assisted navigation ORTHOPILOT. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol 70:5–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Sparmann M, Wolke B, Czupalla H et al (2003) Positioning of total knee arthroplasty with and without navigation support. A prospective, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85:830–835PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Stern SH, Insall JN (1992) Posterior stabilized prosthesis: results after follow-up of 9-12 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74A:980–986Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Stulberg SD (2005) CAS-TKA reduces the occurrence of functional outliers. Presented at the annual meeting of Mid-America Orthopaedic Association, Amelia IslandGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Stulberg SD, Eichorn J, Saragaglia D et al (2003) The rationale for and initial experience with a knee suite of computer assisted surgical applications. In: Third International CAOS Meeting, MarbellaGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Stulberg SD, Yaffe MA, Koo SS (2006) Computer-assisted surgery versus manual total knee arthroplasty: a case-controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:47–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Szalay D, MacRae H, Regehr G et al (2000) Using operative outcome to assess technical skill. Am J Surg 180:234–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Taffinder N, Sutton C, Fishwick RJ et al. (1998) Validation of virtual reality to teach and assess psychomotor skills in laparoscopic surgery: results from randomised controlled studies using the MIST VR laparoscopic simulator. Stud Health Technol Inform 50:124–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Tew M, Waugh W (1985) Tibiofemoral alignment and the results of knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 67B:551–556Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Townley CD. (1985) The anatomic total knee: instrumentation and alignment technique. The knee: papers of the first scientific meeting of the knee society. University Park Press, Baltimore, pp 39–54Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Victor J, Hoste D (2004) Image-based computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty leads to lower variability in coronal alignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:131–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Vince KIG, Insall JN, Kelly MA (1989) The total condylar prosthesis. 10 to 12 year results of a cemented knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 71B:93–797Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Werner FW, Ayers DC, Maletsky LP et al (2005) The effect of valgus/varus malalignment on load distribution in total knee replacements. J Biomech 38:349–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Winckel CP, Reznick RK, Cohen R et al (1994) Reliability and construct validity of a structured technical skills assessment form. Am J Surg 167:423–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Zorman D, Etuin P, Jennart H et al (2005) Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty: comparative results in a preliminary series of 72 cases. Acta Orthop Belg 71:696–702PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ESSKA 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Joint Reconstruction and Implant ServiceNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations