Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement when using robotic assistance during total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims

The primary aim of this study was to determine the surgical team’s learning curve for introducing robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) into routine surgical practice. The secondary objective was to compare accuracy of implant positioning in conventional jig-based UKA versus robotic-arm assisted UKA.

The use of robotics in arthroplasty surgery is expanding rapidly as improvements in the technology evolve. This article examines current evidence to justify the usage of robotics, as well as the future potential in this emerging field.

Objectives

The primary objective of this study was to compare accuracy in restoring the native centre of hip rotation in patients undergoing conventional manual total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus robotic-arm assisted THA. Secondary objectives were to determine differences between these treatment techniques for THA in achieving the planned combined offset, component inclination, component version, and leg-length correction.

The use of robots in orthopaedic surgery is an emerging field that is gaining momentum. It has the potential for significant improvements in surgical planning, accuracy of component implantation and patient safety. Advocates of robot-assisted systems describe better patient outcomes through improved pre-operative planning and enhanced execution of surgery. However, costs, limited availability, a lack of evidence regarding the efficiency and safety of such systems and an absence of long-term high-impact studies have restricted the widespread implementation of these systems. We have reviewed the literature on the efficacy, safety and current understanding of the use of robotics in orthopaedics.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:292–9.

Isolated patellofemoral arthritis is a common condition and there are varying opinions on the most effective treatments. Non-operative and operative treatments have failed to demonstrate effective long-term treatment for those in an advanced stage of the condition. Newer designs and increased technology in patellofemoral replacement (PFR) have produced more consistent outcomes. This has led to a renewed enthusiasm for this procedure. Newer PFR prostheses have addressed the patellar maltracking issues plaguing some of the older designs. Short-term results with contemporary prostheses and new technology are described here.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:124–8.

Progressive degenerative changes in the medial compartment of the knee following lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty (UKA) remains a leading indication for revision surgery. The purpose of this study is to evaluate changes in the congruence and joint space width (JSW) of the medial compartment following lateral UKA. The congruence of the medial compartment of 53 knees (24 men, 23 women, mean age 13.1 years; sd 62.1) following lateral UKA was evaluated pre-operatively and six weeks post-operatively, and compared with 41 normal knees (26 men, 15 women, mean age 33.7 years; sd 6.4), using an Interactive closest point algorithm which calculated the congruence index (CI) by performing a rigid transformation that best aligns the digitised tibial and femoral surfaces. Inner, middle and outer JSWs were measured by sub-dividing the medial compartment into four quarters on pre- and post-operative, weight bearing tunnel view radiographs. The mean CI of knees following lateral UKA significantly improved from 0.92 (sd 0.06) pre-operatively to 0.96 (sd 0.02) (p < 0.001) six weeks post-operatively. The mean CI of the healthy control group was 0.99 sd 0.01. Post-operatively, the mean inner JSW increased (p = 0.006) and the outer decreased (p = 0.002). The JSW was restored post-operatively as no significant differences were noted in all three locations compared with the control group (inner JSW p = 0.43; middle JSW p = 0.019, outer JSW p = 0.51).

Our data suggest that a well conducted lateral UKA may improve the congruence and normalise the JSW of the medial compartment, potentially preventing progression of degenerative change.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:50–5.

In a global environment of rising costs and limited funds, robotic and computer-assisted orthopaedic technologies could provide the means to drive a necessary revolution in arthroplasty productivity. Robots have been used to operate on humans for 20 years, but the adoption of the technology has lagged behind that of the manufacturing industry. The use of robots in surgery should enable cost savings by reducing instrumentation and inventories, and improving accuracy. Despite these benefits, the orthopaedic community has been resistant to change. If the ergonomics and economics are right, robotic technology just might transform the provision of joint replacement.

Robots have been used in surgery since the late 1980s. Orthopaedic surgery began to incorporate robotic technology in 1992, with the introduction of ROBODOC, for the planning and performance of total hip replacement. The use of robotic systems has subsequently increased, with promising short-term radiological outcomes when compared with traditional orthopaedic procedures. Robotic systems can be classified into two categories: autonomous and haptic (or surgeon-guided). Passive surgery systems, which represent a third type of technology, have also been adopted recently by orthopaedic surgeons.

While autonomous systems have fallen out of favour, tactile systems with technological improvements have become widely used. Specifically, the use of tactile and passive robotic systems in unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) has addressed some of the historical mechanisms of failure of non-robotic UKR. These systems assist with increasing the accuracy of the alignment of the components and produce more consistent ligament balance. Short-term improvements in clinical and radiological outcomes have increased the popularity of robot-assisted UKR.

Robot-assisted orthopaedic surgery has the potential for improving surgical outcomes. We discuss the different types of robotic systems available for use in orthopaedics and consider the indication, contraindications and limitations of these technologies.