Computerassistenzsysteme in der Knieendoprothetik
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Dr. T. Calliess (1)
M. Ettinger (1)
H. Windhagen (1) - 关键词：Prothesenpositionierung ; Navigation ; Roboter ; Review ; Komplikationsraten ; Prosthesis positioning ; Navigation ; Robotics ; Review ; Complication rates
- 刊名：Der Orthop?de
- 出版年：2014
- 出版时间：June 2014
- 年：2014
- 卷：43
- 期：6
- 页码：529-533
- 全文大小：
- 参考文献：1. Banks SA (2009) Haptic robotics enable a systems approach to design of a minimally invasive modular knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 38:23鈥?7
2. Bathis H, Perlick L, Tingart M et al (2004) Radiological results of image-based and non-image-based computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 28:87鈥?0 CrossRef
3. Bauwens K, Matthes G, Wich M et al (2007) Navigated total knee replacement. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 89:261鈥?69
4. Bellemans J (2009) Navigation and CAS: is D-day approaching? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:1141鈥?142 CrossRef
5. Burnett RS, Barrack RL (2013) Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty is currently of no proven clinical benefit: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:264鈥?76 CrossRef
6. Catani F, Digennaro V, Ensini A et al (2012) Navigation-assisted total knee arthroplasty in knees with osteoarthritis due to extra-articular deformity. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:546鈥?51 CrossRef
7. Cheng T, Pan XY, Mao X et al (2012) Little clinical advantage of computer-assisted navigation over conventional instrumentation in primary total knee arthroplasty at early follow-up. Knee 19:237鈥?45 CrossRef
8. Cheng T, Zhao S, Peng X et al (2012) Does computer-assisted surgery improve postoperative leg alignment and implant positioning following total knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:1307鈥?322 CrossRef
9. Confalonieri N, Chemello C, Cerveri P et al (2012) Is computer-assisted total knee replacement for beginners or experts? Prospective study among three groups of patients treated by surgeons with different levels of experience. J Orthop Traumatol 13:203鈥?10 CrossRef
10. Daniilidis K, Tibesku CO (2014) A comparison of conventional and patient-specific instruments in total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38:503鈥?08 CrossRef
11. Davis ET, Pagkalos J, Gallie PA et al (2013) Defining the errors in the registration process during imageless computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. J Arthroplasty, in press
12. Dong H, Buxton M (2006) Early assessment of the likely cost-effectiveness of a new technology: a Markov model with probabilistic sensitivity analysis of computer-assisted total knee replacement. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 22:191鈥?02 CrossRef
13. Fu Y, Wang M, Liu Y et al (2012) Alignment outcomes in navigated total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:1075鈥?082 CrossRef
14. Gothesen O, Espehaug B, Havelin L et al (2011) Short-term outcome of 1,465 computer-navigated primary total knee replacements 2005鈥?008. Acta Orthop 82:293鈥?00 CrossRef
15. Harvie P, Sloan K, Beaver RJ (2012) Computer navigation vs conventional total knee arthroplasty: five-year functional results of a prospective randomized trial. J Arthroplasty 27:667鈥?72 e661 CrossRef
16. Hernandez-Vaquero D, Suarez-Vazquez A, Iglesias-Fernandez S (2011) Can computer assistance improve the clinical and functional scores in total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:3436鈥?442 CrossRef
17. Hetaimish BM, Khan MM, Simunovic N et al (2012) Meta-analysis of navigation vs conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27:1177鈥?182 CrossRef
18. Hoke D, Jafari SM, Orozco F et al (2011) Tibial shaft stress fractures resulting from placement of navigation tracker pins. J Arthroplasty 26:504 e505鈥揺508 CrossRef
19. Howell SM, Kuznik K, Hull ML et al (2008) Results of an initial experience with custom-fit positioning total knee arthroplasty in a series of 48 patients. Orthopedics 31:857鈥?63 CrossRef
20. Jenny JY, Diesinger Y (2010) Navigated revision TKR: a comparative study with conventional instruments. Orthopedics 33:58鈥?1 CrossRef
21. Kim YH, Kim JS, Yoon SH (2007) Alignment and orientation of the components in total knee replacement with and without navigation support: a prospective, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 89:471鈥?76
22. Kohn D, Rupp S (2000) Knee endoprosthesis: aspects of surgical techniques. Orthopade 29:697鈥?07 CrossRef
23. Love GJ, Kinninmonth AW (2013) Training benefits of computer navigated total knee arthroplasty. Knee 20:236鈥?41 CrossRef
24. Rath B, Springorum HR, Beckmann J et al (2011) Importance of computer-assisted navigation in total knee arthroplasty 鈥?results of a nationwide survey in Germany. Z Orthop Unfall 149:173鈥?77
25. Schnurr C, Gudden I, Eysel P et al (2012) Influence of computer navigation on TKA revision rates. Int Orthop 36:2255鈥?260 CrossRef
26. Schulz AP, Seide K, Queitsch C et al (2007) Results of total hip replacement using the Robodoc surgical assistant system: clinical outcome and evaluation of complications for 97 procedures. Int J Med Robot 3:301鈥?06 CrossRef
27. Sinha RK (2009) Outcomes of robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 38:20鈥?2
28. Slover JD, Tosteson AN, Bozic KJ et al (2008) Impact of hospital volume on the economic value of computer navigation for total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 90:1492鈥?500
29. Spencer JM, Chauhan SK, Sloan K et al (2007) Computer navigation versus conventional total knee replacement: no difference in functional results at two years. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 89:477鈥?80
30. Thienpont E, Fennema P, Price A (2013) Can technology improve alignment during knee arthroplasty. Knee 20(Suppl 1):S21鈥揝28 CrossRef
31. Venkatesan M, Mahadevan D, Ashford RU (2013) Computer-assisted navigation in knee arthroplasty: a critical appraisal. J Knee Surg 26:357鈥?62 CrossRef
32. Yau WP, Chiu KY, Zuo JL et al (2008) Computer navigation did not improve alignment in a lower-volume total knee practice. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:935鈥?45 CrossRef - 作者单位：Dr. T. Calliess (1)
M. Ettinger (1)
H. Windhagen (1)
1. Department Endoprothetik und Rekonstruktive Gelenkchirurgie, Orthop盲dische Klinik der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover im Annastift, Anna-von-Borries-Str. 3, 30449, Hannover, Deutschland - ISSN：1433-0431
文摘
Background The primary goal of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) in total knee arthroplasty is to increase the accuracy in terms of prosthesis positioning. In theory, this would lead to longer implant survival and a reduction of malpositioning. Thus, a better clinical outcome and lower revision rates would be expected. However, the necessary technical equipment represents significant additional effort and cost factors which are not included in the current diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system. Objective The objective of this article is a critical review of the current literature to examine whether these costs are reasonable by taking the additional benefits of the technology into account. Methods This review is based on a selective PubMed search on CAS and navigation in primary total knee arthroplasty. Results The current evidence base on CAS suggests that at least the primary outcome parameter, the improvement of the radiological alignment, is achieved by the technique. However, the claimed secondary effects are not yet proven. In particular, an improvement of clinical outcome and patient satisfaction has not been demonstrated so far. Furthermore, there is some evidence of increased complication rates by the use of CAS. Conclusion Against this background and with respect to further cost-benefit analyses, the technology has to be reviewed critically. In particular, low-volume units do not seem to benefit from the use of CAS. However, the assessment of long-term effects is still pending.