Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement. A prospective, randomised controlled study of the Acrobot system

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series B

Volumn 88, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 188-197

  Cobb, J ^a   Henckel, J ^b   Gomes, P ^c   Harris, S ^c   Jakopec, M ^c   Rodriguez, F ^c   Barrett, A ^c   Davies, B ^d  

^a CHARING CROSS HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b MIDDLESEX HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c The Acrobot Company Limited   (United Kingdom)

^d IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; FEMALE; FEMUR; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KNEE ARTHROPLASTY; MALE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS; OPERATION DURATION; ORTHOPEDIC EQUIPMENT; OSTEOARTHRITIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERFORMANCE; PREOPERATIVE CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; ROBOTICS; SCORING SYSTEM; SURGEON; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TIBIA; TREATMENT PLANNING;

AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; FEMALE; FEMUR; HUMANS; KNEE JOINT; KNEE PROSTHESIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; ROBOTICS; ROTATION; SURGERY, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; TIBIA; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33244496943     PISSN: 0301620X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B2.17220     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Knutson K, Lewold S. Robertson O, Lidgren L. The swedish knee arthroplasty register: a nation-wide study of 30,003 knees 1976-1992. Acta Orthop Scand 1994:65: 375-86.
2. Goodfellow JW. The Oxford Knee for unicompartmetnal ostaoarthritis: the first 103 cases. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1988:70-B:692-701.
3. Argenson JN, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubaniac JM. Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2002;84-A:2235-9.
4. Svard UC, Price AJ. Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2001;83-B:191-4.
5. Murray OW, Goodfellow JW, O'Connor JJ. The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1998;80-B:983-9.
6. Beard DJ, Murray DW, Rees JL, Price AJ, Dodd CA. Accelerated recovery for unicompartmental knee replacement a feasibility study. Knee 2002:9:221-4.
7. Hernigou P, Deschamps G. Alignment influences wear in the knee after medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 2004;423:161-5.
8. Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: five-year results of a prospective, randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1998;80-B:862-5.
9. Berger RA, Nedeff DD, Barden RM, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: clinical experience at 6-to 10-year followup. Clin Orthop 1999:367:50-60.
10. Weinstein JN, Andriacchi TP, Galante J. Factors influencing walking and stair-climbing following unicompartments knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1986:1: 109-15.
11. Stulberg SD, Loan P, Sarin V. Computer-assisted navigation in total knee replacement: results of an initial experience in thirty-five patients. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2002;84-A:90-8.
12. Bathis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, et al. Alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of computer-assisted surgery with the conventional technique. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2004;86-B:682-7.
13. Siebert W, Mais S, Kober R, Heeckt PF. Technique and first clinical results of robot-assisted total knee replacement. Knee 2002;9:173-80.
14. Bargar WL, Bauer A, Bonier M. Primary and revision total hip replacement using the Robodoc system. Clin Orthop 1998:354:82-91.
15. Mielke RK, Clemens U, Jens JH, Kershally J. Navigation in knee endoprosthesis implantation: preliminary experiences and prospective comparative study with conventional implantation technique. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2001:139:109-16 (in German).
16. Jenny JY, Boeri C. Computer-assisted implantation of total knee prostheses: a case-control comparative study with classical instrumentation. Comput Aided Surg 2001:6:217-20.
17. Hart R, Janacek M, Chaker A, Bucek P. Total knee arthroplasty implanted with and without kinematic navigation. Int Orthop 2003;27:356-9.
18. Clemens U, Miehlke RK. Experience using the latest OrthoPilot TKA software: a comparative study. Surg Technol Int 2003;11:265-73.
19. Nogler M, Wimmer G, Lass Florl C, et al. Contamination risk of the surgical team through ROBODOC's high-speed cutter. Clin Orthop 2001;387:225-31.
20. Nogler M, Krismer M, Haid C, et al. Excessive heat generation during cutting of cement in the Robodoc hip-revision procedure. Acta Orthop Scand 2001;72:595-9.
21. Stockl B, Nogler M, Rusiek M, et al. Navigation improves accuracy of rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 2004:426:180-6.
22. Jeffcote B, Shakespeare D. Varus/valgus alignment of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2003:10:243-7.
23. Kennedy WR, White RP. Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee: postoperative alignment and its influence on overall results. Clin Orthop 1987:221:278-85.
24. Voss F, Shienkop MB, Galante JO, Rosenberg AG. Miller-Galante unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 2-to 5-year follow-up evaluations. J Arthroplasty 1995: 10:764-71.
25. Emerson RH Jr, Hansborough T, Reitman RD, Rosenfeld EW, Higgins LL. Comparison of a mobile with a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee implant. Clin Orthop 2002;404:62-70.
26. Jenny JY, Boeri C. Unicompartmental knee prosthesis implantation with a non-image-based navigation system: rationale, technique, case-control comparative study with a conventional instrumented implantation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2003;11:40-5.
27. Jenny JY, Boeri C. Accuracy of implantation of a unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty with 2 different instrumentations: a case-controlled comparative study. J Arthroplasty 2002;17:1016-20.
28. Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Grelsamer RP. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery: 10-year minimum follow-up period. J Arthroplasty 1996:11:782-8.
29. Jakopec M, Harris SH, Rodriguez y Baena F, et al. The first clinical application of a "hands-on" robotic knee surgery system. Comput Aided Surg 2001;6:329-39.
30. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott RN. Rationale of The Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop 1989:248:13-14.
31. Bellamy N, Buchanan W, Goldsmith C. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient-related outcomes following total hip or knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. Orthop Rheum 1988:1:95-108.
32. Liow RY, Walker K, Wajid MA, Bedi C, Lennox CM. The reliability of the American Knee Society Score. Acta Orthop Scand 2000;71:603-8.
33. Lotke PA, Ecker ML. Influence of positioning of prosthesis in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1977:59-A:77-9.