A brief history of robotic systems in knee arthroplasty is provided. The place of autonomous robots is then discussed and compared to more recent ‘hands-on’ robotic systems that can be more cost effective. The case is made for robotic systems to have a clear justification, with improved benefits compared to those from cheaper navigation systems. A number of more recent, smaller, robot systems for knee arthroplasty are also described. A specific example is given of an active constraint medical robot, the ACROBOT system, used in a prospective randomized controlled trial of unicondylar robotic knee arthroplasty in which the robot was compared to conventional surgery. The results of the trial are presented together with a discussion of the need for measures of accuracy to be introduced so that the efficacy of the robotic surgery can be immediately identified, rather than have to wait for a number of years before long-term clinical improvements can be demonstrated.
DaviesB. L.A review of robotics in surgeryProc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part H:J. Engineering in Medicine, 2000, 214(H1), 129–140.
2.
TaylorR.FichtingerG.JensenP.RiviereC.Medical robotics and computer-integrated surgery: Information-driven systems for 21st century operating roomsJ. Japan Soc. Computer Aided Surg., 2000, 2(2), 47–53.
3.
DaviesB. L.Robotic devices in surgery In Minimally invasive therapy and allied technologies, 2003, vol. 12 (1–2), pp. 5–13 (Taylor and Francis, London).
DasguptaP.JonesA.GillI. S.Robotic urological surgery: A perspectiveBJU Int., 2005, 95(1), 20–23.
6.
MittelstadtB.KazanzidesP.ZuharsJ.WilliamsonB.CainP.SmithF.BargarW. L.The evolution of a surgical robot from prototype to human clinical use In Computer integrated surgery, 1996, pp. 397–407 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts).
7.
BörnerL.Bauer experiences with the ROBODOC system in more than 1000 cases. In Computer aided radiology and surgery (Eds LemkeH. U.VannierM. W.InamuraK.FarmanA. G.), Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium (CARS'98), Tokyo, Japan, 1998, pp. 689–693.
8.
RauhM. A.KrackowK. A.Rationale for computer-assisted orthopaedic knee surgery In Computer and robotic assisted knee and hip surgery (Ed. DiGioiaA.), 2004, pp. 108–121 (Oxford University Press).
9.
SiebertW.MaiS.KoberR.HeecktP. F.Total knee replacement: Robotic assistive technique In Computer and robotic assisted knee and hip surgery (Ed. DiGioiaA.), 2004, pp. 122–135 (Oxford University Press).
10.
SiebertW.MaiS.KoberR.HeecktP. F.Technique and first clinical results of robot-assisted total knee replacementThe Knee, 2002, 9, 173–180.
11.
12.
DenisK.RanftlA.Van HamG.Vander SlotenJ.De SchutterJ.FabryG.Van AudekerckeR.Van der PerreG.Comparison of registration procedures of the tibia in robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty In Lecture notes in computer science, 2003, vol. 2878, pp. 182–189 (Springer).
13.
LüringC.BäthisH.TingartM.PerlickL.GrifkaJ.Computer assistance in total knee replacement - a critical assessment of current health care technology. In Computer aided surgery, 2000, vol. 11 (2), pp. 77–80 (Taylor and Francis, London).
14.
IlsarI.JoskowitzL.KandelL.MatanY.Navigated total knee replacement - a comprehensive clinical state of the art. In Proceedings of the 6th CAOS International Conference (Eds LanglotzF.DaviesB.EllisR.), Montréal, 21–24 June 2006, pp. 229–231.
15.
JennyJ. Y.BoeriC.Accuracy of implantation of a unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty with 2 different instrumentations: A case-controlled comparative studyJ. Arthroplasty, 2002, 17(8), 1016–1020.
16.
MorA.CiprianiJ.JaramazB.DiGioiaA. M.Accuracy testing of electromagnetic tracking systems. In Proceedings of the 6th CAOS International Conference (Eds LanglotzF.DaviesB.EllisR.), Montréal, 21–24 June 2006, pp. 390–393.
17.
BarrettA. R. W.DaviesB. L.GomesM. P.S.F.HarrisS. J.HenckelJ.JakopecM.Rodriguez y BaenaF. M.CobbJ. P.Preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance for accurate computer assisted minimally invasive hip resurfacing surgeryProc. Instn Mech. Engrs, Part H: J. Engineering in Medicine, 2006, 220(H7), 759–773.
18.
DaviesB. L.NgW. S.HibberdR. D.Prostatic resection; an example of safe robotic surgeryRobotica, 1993, 11, 561–566.
19.
JakopecM.HarrisS.BaenaF.GomesP.CobbJ.DaviesB. L.The first clinical application of a hands-on robotic knee surgery systemComputer Aided Surg., 2001, 6, 329–339.
20.
RodriguezF.GomesP.HarrisS.JakopecM.BarrettA.HenckelJ.CobbJ.DaviesB. L.Robotic clinical trials of uni-condylar arthroplastyInt. J. Med. Robotics and Computer Assisted Surg., 2005, 1(4), 20–28.
21.
LotkeP. A.EckerM. L.Influence of positioning of prosthesis in total knee replacement. J. Bone Jt Surg., 1977, 59A(1), 77–79.
22.
PlaskosC.MasriB. A.CinquinP.HodgsonA. J.LavalleeS.Computer assisted minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty using a miniature robot In IMechE Conference on Knee arthroplasty: engineering functionality London, 2005, pp. 183–186.
23.
PlaskosC.CinquinP.LavalléeS.HodgsonA. J.Praxiteles: A miniature bone-mounted robot for minimal access total knee arthroplastyInt. J. Med. Robotics and Computer Assisted Surg., 2005, 1(4), 67–79.
24.
WolfA.JaramazB.LisienB.DiGioiaA. M.MBARS: Mini bone-attached robotic system for joint arthroplastyInt. J. Med. Robotics and Computer Assisted Surg., 2005, 1(2), 101–121.
25.
CobbJ.HenckelJ.GomesP.HarrisS.JakopecM.RodriguezF.BarrettA.DaviesB. L.Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacementJ. Bone Jt Surg., 2006, 88B, 188–197.
26.
HarrisS. J.Henckel, J., Cobb, J. P., Davies, B. L., Barrett, A. R. W., Rodriguez y Baena, F. M., Jakopec, M., and Gomes, M. P. S. F. The impact of computer assisted planning on knee arthroplasty. In Proceedings of the 4th CAOS International Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, June 2004, pp. 248–251.
27.
28.
GoodfellowJ. W.KershawC. J.BensonM. K.O'ConnorJ. J.The Oxford Knee for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. The first 103 cases. J. Bone Jt Surg., 1988, 70B(5), 692–701.
29.
LiowR. Y. L.WalkerK.BediG.LennoxC. M. E.The reliability of the American Knee Society ScoreActa Orthop. Scand., 2000, 71(6), 603–608.
