Computer Navigation of Minimally Invasive Total Knee Replacement

2006 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 211-216
Author(s):  
Kenneth Gustke
2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 781-791 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederic Picard ◽  
Angela Deakin ◽  
Navin Balasubramanian ◽  
Alberto Gregori

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (5_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967117S0016
Author(s):  
A/Prof Michael Reid ◽  
Dr Benjamin Parkinson ◽  
Dr Adam Parr ◽  
Dr Christopher Conyard ◽  
Dr Drew Armit ◽  
...  

Objectives: During total knee replacement (TKR) surgery, the most commonly used method for aligning the distal femur appropriately is via an intramedullary (IM) distal femoral alignment rod. The alignment of the rod itself is reliant on the isthmus which is used to most accurately place the rod in the correct anatomical axis. In the instance of something preventing the rod from entering the isthmus correctly, such as a hip replacement, then the degree of accuracy could be assumed to be even less. Mechanical-anatomical malalignment has been shown to decrease the implant (TKR) survival and so methods of increasing accuracy of alignment relative to the mechanical axis have been developed. At present the most accurate method intraoperatively is computer navigation and several studies have demonstrated improved alignment. An increasing number of patients year on year are having both knee and hip replacements and as the population ages the likelihood of having both a knee and hip replacement will also increase. We propose that the presence of a hip replacement within the isthmus of the femur may further decrease the accuracy of the IM alignment of the femur leading to incorrect implant positioning. Methods: The study was conducted on 10 cadaveric specimens (20 femurs). Computational navigation instrumentation was attached in turn to each femur and the ideal alignment data recorded in a standard fashion by a single operator (principal investigator). A standard entry port was then be made in the femur for the introduction of the IM rod. An IM rod was then inserted with the distal femoral cutting block in the accepted position recorded blindly on the computer navigation (both in terms of varus/valgus alignment to the mechanical axis and the degree of flexion). The process was then repeated at 3 levels to represent primary and revision hip lengths from the greater trochanter (replicating the changes that would occur in the presence of a hip replacement) The process was recorded three times at each level. Results: The resection angles between the cutting surface and the mechanical axis were measured and collected by means of computer navigation system. The results show that the IM alignment had mean Valgus of 0 degrees +/- 0.8 but with a hip replacement in situ this increased to 0.46 degrees +/- 1.49 (range 2.5 varus to 4.5 valgus), with a revision stem 0.825 +/- 1.68 (range 2.5 varus to 4.5 valgus) and long stemmed revision 1.325 +/- 2.09 (range 5 varus to 6.5 valgus). In terms of Flexion IM alignment had a mean flexion of 0.92 +/- 1.7 (range 3 extension to 4 flexion) but with a hip replacement in situ this increased to 1.88 degrees +/- 2.03 (range 2.5 extension to 8.5 flexion), with a revision stem 2.35 +/- 2.2 (range 2.5 extension to 8 flexion) and long stemmed revision 2.75 +/- 2.16 (range 3.5 extension to 7 flexion). Conclusion: This Study concludes that the prescence of a hip replacement, in particular long stemmed prosthesis, further reduces the accuracy of IM alignment in the Femur for Total Knee Replacement. Consideration of an alternative method, such as navigation, should be considered in such situations.


10.29007/65qr ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamal Deep ◽  
Frederic Picard

The accuracy of implantation using computer navigation and robotic total knee replacement (TKR) has been proven. Time taken during surgery has been a factor for surgeons for not using the technology. Aim of this study was to analyse time taken in different steps and identify which part needs improvement. Robotic time was compared to computer navigation. Methods: 15TKR were performed with MAKO robot. Software for the ligament balancing was used. All had CT scan preoperatively. Time of different surgical steps was recorded. Time for computer navigation was recorded too. After joint exposure, trackers and verification pins for tibia and femur were inserted. Femoral registration matching started at 10.8 minutes (SD3.3 Range7-20). It took 3.2 minutes to match femoral anatomy to CT scan. Tibial registration done at 14.1minutes (SD3 Range10- 23). Once matching was accepted to required accuracy, tibial cut was made at 22.2 minutes (SD4.4 Range 15-30). Next the soft tissues were assessed with tensioner. It took 6.3 minutes (SD 5.6). Final femoral preparation done at 35.7 minutes (SD 5.6 Range25-45). Trial performed at 52 minutes (SD7.3 Range42-63). Implants were cemented at 63.4 minutes (SD8 Range50-72). Wound closed at 77.6 minutes (SD9.5 Range65-97). The computer navigated TKR surgery took 70 minutes on an average. Compared to navigation, robotic technique took approximately 7 minutes longer, not significantly different. This could be due to learning curve of the surgical and theatre team. Improvement is required in different steps. The familiarity of staff will increase the efficiency. Registration matching took 11.4 minutes. Femoral preparation took 17 minutes. These steps could be streamlined.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document