nach oben

Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine

Erschienen in:

07.07.2017 | Quality and Cost Control in TJA (B Waddell, section editor)

Technology in Arthroplasty: Are We Improving Value?

verfasst von: Bradford S. Waddell, Kaitlin Carroll, Seth Jerabek

Erschienen in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine | Ausgabe 3/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Total joint arthroplasty is regarded as a highly successful procedure. Patient outcomes and implant longevity, however, are related to proper alignment and position of the prostehses. In an attempt to reduce outliers and improve accuracy and precision of component position, navigation and robotics have been introduced. These technologies, however, come at a price. The goals of this review are to evaluate these technologies in total joint arthroplasty and determine if they add value.

Recent Findings

Recent studies have demonstrated that navigation and robotics in total joint arthroplasty can decrease outliers while improving accuracy in component positioning. While some studies have demonstrated improved patient reported outcomes, not all studies have shown this to be true. Most studies cite increased cost of equipment and longer operating room times as the major downsides of the technologies at present. Long-term studies are just becoming available and are promising, as some studies have shown decreased revision rates when navigation is used. Finally, there are relatively few studies evaluating the direct cost and value of these technologies.

Summary

Navigation and robotics have been shown to improve component position in total joint arthroplasty, which can improve patient outcomes and implant longevity. These technologies offer a promising future for total joint arthroplasty.

Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, Knutson K, Lidgren L. Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:262–7. doi:10.1080/000164700317411852.CrossRefPubMed

Warth LC, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Klaassen AL, Goetz DD, Johnston RC. Thirty-five-year results after Charnley total hip arthroplasty in patients less than fifty years old. A concise follow-up of previous reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:1814–9. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.01573.CrossRefPubMed

Knight SR, Aujla R, Biswas SP. Total hip arthroplasty - over 100 years of operative history. Orthop Rev. 2011;3:e16. doi:10.4081/or.2011.e16.CrossRef

• Berend ME, Ritter MA, Meding JB, Faris PM, Keating EM, Redelman R, et al. Tibial component failure mechanisms in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2004;428:26–34. This study details failure mechanisms among 3152 metal backed cemented tibial components in total knee arthroplasty.Overall tibial revision rate was 1.3% (41 tobial components). Primary mode of failure was medial bone collapse and main factors related to this were tibial component varus greater than 3 degrees, higher BMI and overall postoperative varun alignment of the limb. CrossRef

• Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60:217–20. This classic study defined the safe zones for acetabular cup position in total hip arthroplasty. Safe zones were defined as inclination of 40 +/- 10 degrees and anterversion of 15 +/-10 degrees. Outside these zones, the dislocation rate increased from 1.5% to 6.1%. CrossRefPubMed

Wasielewski RC, Galante JO, Leighty RM, Natarajan RN, Rosenberg AG. Wear patterns on retrieved polyethylene tibial inserts and their relationship to technical considerations during total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1994;299:31–43.

Jeffery RS, Morris RW, Denham RA. Coronal alignment after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73:709–14.PubMed

Barrack RL, Schrader T, Bertot AJ, Wolfe MW, Myers L. Component rotation and anterior knee pain after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2001;392:46–55.CrossRef

Brown MJ, Matthews JR, Bayers-Thering MT, Phillips MJ, Krackow KA. Low incidence of postoperative complications with navigated Total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2017; doi:10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.045.

10.

Knee Navigation Application for Arthroplasty Knee3 from Brainlab. Brainlab n.d. https://www.brainlab.com/en/surgery-products/orthopedic-surgery-products/knee-navigation-application/. Accessed 1 April 2017.

11.

Computer-Assisted Surgery — Exactech, Inc. n.d. https://www.exac.com/products/knee/advanced-surgical-instrumentation. Accessed 1 April 2017.

12.

Nam D, Jerabek SA, Haughom B, Cross MB, Reinhardt KR, Mayman DJ. Radiographic analysis of a hand-held surgical navigation system for tibial resection in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2011;26:1527–33. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.01.012.CrossRef

13.

• Cip J, Widemschek M, Luegmair M, Sheinkop MB, Benesch T, Martin A. Conventional versus computer-assisted technique for total knee arthroplasty: a minimum of 5-year follow-up of 200 patients in a prospective randomized comparative trial. J Arthroplast. 2014;29:1795–802. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.04.037. This study compared 100 consecutive navigated total knee replacements to 100 consecutive conventional total knee replacements. At 5 years postop, they found the navigated group to have a non-statistically lower rate of revision (1.1% vs 4.6%, p=0.368). The navigated group had a higher chance of being within 3 degrees of the mechanical axis and more accurate slope. Finally, Insall and HSS scores were higher in the navigated group. CrossRef

14.

Blakeney WG, Khan RJK, Palmer JL. Functional outcomes following total knee arthroplasty: a randomised trial comparing computer-assisted surgery with conventional techniques. Knee. 2014;21:364–8. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2013.04.001.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Baumbach JA, Willburger R, Haaker R, Dittrich M, Kohler S. 10-year survival of navigated versus conventional TKAs: a retrospective study. Orthopedics. 2016;39:S72–6. doi:10.3928/01477447-20160509-21.CrossRefPubMed

16.

de Steiger RN, Liu Y-L, Graves SE. Computer navigation for total knee arthroplasty reduces revision rate for patients less than sixty-five years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97:635–42. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.01496.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Licini DJ, Meneghini RM. Modern abbreviated computer navigation of the femur reduces blood loss in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2015;30:1729–32. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.04.020.CrossRef

18.

Moskal JT, Capps SG, Mann JW, Scanelli JA. Navigated versus conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2014;27:235–48. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1360659.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Burnett RSJ, Barrack RL. Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty is currently of no proven clinical benefit: a systematic review. Clin Orthop. 2013;471:264–76. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2528-8.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Song EK, Agrawal PR, Kim SK, Seo HY, Seon JK. A randomized controlled clinical and radiological trial about outcomes of navigation-assisted TKA compared to conventional TKA: long-term follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. 2016;24:3381–6. doi:10.1007/s00167-016-3996-2.CrossRef

21.

Song E-K, Seon J-K, Park S-J, Jung WB, Park H-W, Lee GW. Simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty with robotic and conventional techniques: a prospective, randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. 2011;19:1069–76. doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1400-9.CrossRef

22.

Ponder CE, Plaskos C, Cheal EJ. Press-fit Total knee arthroplasty with a robotic-cutting guide: proof of concept and initial clinical experience. Bone Jt J. 2013;95–B:61.

23.

Koenig JA, Suero EM, Plaskos C. Surgical accuracy and efficiency of computer-navigated Tka with a robotic cutting guide – report on the first 100 cases. Orthop Proc. 2012;94–B:103.

24.

Hampp E, Scholl L, Prieto M, Chang T, Abbasi A, Stoker M, et al. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrated greater accuracy to plan compared to manual technique. 2017.

25.

Hampp E, Stoker M, Scholl L, Otto J, Mont M. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty demonstrated soft tissue protection. 2017.

26.

Riddle DL, Jiranek WA, McGlynn FJ. Yearly incidence of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplast. 2008;23:408–12. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2007.04.012.CrossRef

27.

Bell SW, Anthony I, Jones B, MacLean A, Rowe P, Blyth M. Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: data from a prospective, randomized controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:627–35. doi:10.2106/JBJS.15.00664.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Pearle AD, van der List JP, Lee L, Coon TM, Borus TA, Roche MW. Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up. Knee. 2017;24:419–28. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2016.12.001.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Lonner JH, Smith JR, Picard F, Hamlin B, Rowe PJ, Riches PE. High degree of accuracy of a novel image-free handheld robot for unicondylar knee arthroplasty in a cadaveric study. Clin Orthop. 2015;473:206–12. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3764-x.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Nam D, Weeks KD, Reinhardt KR, Nawabi DH, Cross MB, Mayman DJ. Accelerometer-based, portable navigation vs imageless, large-console computer-assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of radiographic results. J Arthroplast. 2013;28:255–61. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.04.023.CrossRef

31.

Steppacher SD, Kowal JH, Murphy SB. Improving cup positioning using a mechanical navigation instrument. Clin Orthop. 2011;469:423–8. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1553-8.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Dorr LD, Malik A, Wan Z, Long WT, Harris M. Precision and bias of imageless computer navigation and surgeon estimates for acetabular component position. Clin Orthop. 2007;465:92–9. doi:10.1097/BLO.0b013e3181560c51.PubMed

33.

Davis ET, Schubert M, Wegner M, Haimerl M. A new method of registration in navigated hip arthroplasty without the need to register the anterior pelvic plane. J Arthroplast. 2015;30:55–60. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.08.026.CrossRef

34.

• Lass R, Kubista B, Olischar B, Frantal S, Windhager R, Giurea A. Total hip arthroplasty using imageless computer-assisted hip navigation: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplast. 2014;29:786–91. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.08.020. In this randomized study, the authors found that computer navigation did not aid in improving the inclination, but did find the anteversion to be significantly more accurate. They also found outliers from the safe zone to be significantly less in the navigated group. CrossRef

35.

Weber M, Woerner M, Springorum R, Sendtner E, Hapfelmeier A, Grifka J, et al. Fluoroscopy and imageless navigation enable an equivalent reconstruction of leg length and global and femoral offset in THA. Clin Orthop. 2014;472:3150–8. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3740-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Ellapparadja P, Mahajan V, Deakin AH, Deep K. Reproduction of hip offset and leg length in navigated Total hip arthroplasty: how accurate are we? J Arthroplast. 2015;30:1002–7. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.01.027.CrossRef

37.

Renkawitz T, Weber M, Springorum H-R, Sendtner E, Woerner M, Ulm K, et al. Impingement-free range of movement, acetabular component cover and early clinical results comparing “femur-first” navigation and “conventional” minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a randomised controlled trial. Bone Jt J. 2015;97–B:890–8. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B7.34729.CrossRef

38.

Keshmiri A, Schröter C, Weber M, Craiovan B, Grifka J, Renkawitz T. No difference in clinical outcome, bone density and polyethylene wear 5-7 years after standard navigated vs. conventional cementfree total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135:723–30. doi:10.1007/s00402-015-2201-2.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Stiehl JB, Heck DA, Jaramaz B, Amiot L-P. Comparison of fluoroscopic and imageless registration in surgical navigation of the acetabular component. Comput Aided Surg Off J Int Soc Comput Aided Surg. 2007;12:116–24. doi:10.3109/10929080701292939.CrossRef

40.

Kalteis T, Handel M, Bäthis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, Grifka J. Imageless navigation for insertion of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty: is it as accurate as CT-based navigation? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:163–7. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.88B2.17163.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Digioia AM, Jaramaz B, Plakseychuk AY, Moody JE, Nikou C, Labarca RS, et al. Comparison of a mechanical acetabular alignment guide with computer placement of the socket. J Arthroplast. 2002;17:359–64.CrossRef

42.

• Parratte S, Argenson J-NA. Validation and usefulness of a computer-assisted cup-positioning system in total hip arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized, controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:494–9. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00529. In this study, computer navigation took longer, however, it gave a significant reduction in the outliers from the safe zone for inclination and version. PubMed

43.

Sugano N, Takao M, Sakai T, Nishii T, Miki H. Does CT-based navigation improve the long-term survival in ceramic-on-ceramic THA? Clin Orthop. 2012;470:3054–9. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2378-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Beckmann J, Stengel D, Tingart M, Götz J, Grifka J, Lüring C. Navigated cup implantation in hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2009;80:538–44. doi:10.3109/17453670903350073.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Elson L, Dounchis J, Illgen R, Marchand RC, Padgett DE, Bragdon CR, et al. Precision of acetabular cup placement in robotic integrated total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int J Clin Exp Res Hip Pathol Ther. 2015;25:531–6. doi:10.5301/hipint.5000289.

46.

Bargar WL. Robots in orthopaedic surgery: past, present, and future. Clin Orthop. 2007;463:31–6.PubMed

47.

Nakamura N, Sugano N, Nishii T, Kakimoto A, Miki H. A comparison between robotic-assisted and manual implantation of Cementless Total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2010;468:1072–81. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-1158-2.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Bargar WL, Bauer A, Börner M. Primary and revision total hip replacement using the Robodoc system. Clin Orthop. 1998:82–91.

49.

Honl M, Dierk O, Gauck C, Carrero V, Lampe F, Dries S, et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual implantation of a primary total hip replacement. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85–A:1470–8.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Spencer EH. The ROBODOC clinical trial: a robotic assistant for total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Nurs. 1996;15:9–14.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Nishihara S, Sugano N, Nishii T, Miki H, Nakamura N, Yoshikawa H. Comparison between hand rasping and robotic milling for stem implantation in cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2006;21:957–66. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2006.01.001.CrossRef

52.

Hananouchi T, Sugano N, Nishii T, Nakamura N, Miki H, Kakimoto A, et al. Effect of robotic milling on periprosthetic bone remodeling. J Orthop Res Off Publ Orthop Res Soc. 2007;25:1062–9. doi:10.1002/jor.20376.CrossRef

53.

Gallo J, Havranek V, Zapletalova J. Risk factors for accelerated polyethylene wear and osteolysis in ABG I total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2010;34:19–26. doi:10.1007/s00264-009-0731-3.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Leslie IJ, Williams S, Isaac G, Ingham E, Fisher J. High cup angle and microseparation increase the wear of hip surface replacements. Clin Orthop. 2009;467:2259–65. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-0830-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

Callanan MC, Jarrett B, Bragdon CR, Zurakowski D, Rubash HE, Freiberg AA, et al. The John Charnley award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. Clin Orthop. 2011;469:319–29. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1487-1.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Bosker BH, Verheyen CCPM, Horstmann WG, Tulp NJA. Poor accuracy of freehand cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007;127:375–9. doi:10.1007/s00402-007-0294-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Leichtle U, Gosselke N, Wirth CJ, Rudert M. Radiologic evaluation of cup placement variation in conventional total hip arthroplasty. ROFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Nuklearmed. 2007;179:46–52. doi:10.1055/s-2006-927085.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Nawabi DH, Conditt MA, Ranawat AS, Dunbar NJ, Jones J, Banks S, et al. Haptically guided robotic technology in total hip arthroplasty: a cadaveric investigation. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H]. 2013;227:302–9. doi:10.1177/0954411912468540.CrossRef

59.

Domb BG, El Bitar YF, Sadik AY, Stake CE, Botser IB. Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study. Clin Orthop. 2014;472:329–36. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3253-7.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Domb BG, Redmond JM, Louis SS, Alden KJ, Daley RJ, LaReau JM, et al. Accuracy of component positioning in 1980 Total hip arthroplasties: a comparative analysis by surgical technique and mode of guidance. J Arthroplast. 2015;30:2208–18. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.059.CrossRef

61.

Schulz AP, Seide K, Queitsch C, von Haugwitz A, Meiners J, Kienast B, et al. Results of total hip replacement using the Robodoc surgical assistant system: clinical outcome and evaluation of complications for 97 procedures. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg MRCAS. 2007;3:301–6. doi:10.1002/rcs.161.CrossRef

62.

Chun YS, Kim KI, Cho YJ, Kim YH, Yoo MC, Rhyu KH. Causes and patterns of aborting a robot-assisted arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2011;26:621–5. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2010.05.017.CrossRef

63.

Moschetti WE, Konopka JF, Rubash HE, Genuario JW. Can robot-assisted Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty be cost-effective? A Markov decision analysis. J Arthroplast. 2016;31:759–65. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.10.018.CrossRef

64.

Novak EJ, Silverstein MD, Bozic KJ. The cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:2389–97. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.01109.PubMed

65.

Slover JD, Tosteson ANA, Bozic KJ, Rubash HE, Malchau H. Impact of hospital volume on the economic value of computer navigation for total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1492–500. doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.00888.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

66.

Beal MD, Delagramaticas D, Fitz D. Improving outcomes in total knee arthroplasty-do navigation or customized implants have a role? J Orthop Surg. 2016;11:60. doi:10.1186/s13018-016-0396-8.CrossRef

Titel: Technology in Arthroplasty: Are We Improving Value?
verfasst von: Bradford S. Waddell
Kaitlin Carroll
Seth Jerabek
Publikationsdatum: 07.07.2017
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine / Ausgabe 3/2017
Elektronische ISSN: 1935-9748
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-017-9415-6

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

18.04.2024 | Wirbelsäulenmetastase | Nachrichten

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Technology in Arthroplasty: Are We Improving Value?

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Brustkrebs in der Vorgeschichte macht Gelenkersatz komplikationsträchtiger

Zwei neue Alternativen zu TNF-Inhibitoren bei axSpA

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2017

ACL Rehabilitation Progression: Where Are We Now?

Improving Quality and Decreasing Cost by Reducing Re-admissions in Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty

ACL Injury Prevention: What Does Research Tell Us?

ACL Return to Sport Guidelines and Criteria

Perioperative Medication Management in the Rheumatic Diseases

Current Concepts and Controversies in Rehabilitation After Surgery for Multiple Ligament Knee Injury

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Brustkrebs in der Vorgeschichte macht Gelenkersatz komplikationsträchtiger

Zwei neue Alternativen zu TNF-Inhibitoren bei axSpA

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie