Comparison of Robotic-Assisted and Manual Implantation of a Primary Total Hip Replacement

Honl, M.; Dierk, Oliver; Gauck, Christian; Carrero, Volker; Lampe, Frank; Dries, Sebastian P. M.; Quante, Markus; Schwieger, Karsten; Hille, E.; Morlock, Michael M.

doi:10.2106/00004623-200308000-00007

Cited by 206 publications

(156 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

138

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the current study, the average surgical time was 12 minutes longer for the robotic-milling group. This difference was much smaller than times reported by others [3,15] (Table 6). This difference in surgical time did not influence the estimated blood loss or infection rate.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 58%

“…Some short-term clinical results of this robotic-assisted system have been published [3,15]. We also reported preliminary results [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Robotic-assisted surgery and the hand-rasping operation were prospectively compared in two studies [3,15] (Table 6). Bargar et al [3] described the results of the original three-pin system robotic-assisted surgery through a posterior approach that took a longer surgical time (average, 258 minutes) than ours.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bargar et al [3] described the results of the original three-pin system robotic-assisted surgery through a posterior approach that took a longer surgical time (average, 258 minutes) than ours. Honl et al [15] reported the results using a two-pin system and the S-ROM stem (DePuy, Leeds, UK) through an anterolateral approach. Although different types of prostheses or different surgical approaches were described in these reports, there is some agreement in their results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Comparison between Robotic-assisted and Manual Implantation of Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty

Nakamura

Sugano

Nishii

et al. 2010

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

114

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The benefits of robotic techniques for implanting femoral components during THA are still controversial. Questions/Purposes The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare the results and complications of robotic-assisted and hand-rasping stem implantation techniques. Method The minimum followup was 5 years (mean, 67 months; range, 60-85 months). One hundred forty-six primary THAs on 130 patients were included in this study. Robot-assisted primary THA was performed on 75 hips and a hand-rasping technique was used on 71 hips.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 58%

“…Some short-term clinical results of this robotic-assisted system have been published [3,15]. We also reported preliminary results [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Comparison between Robotic-assisted and Manual Implantation of Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty

Nakamura

Sugano

Nishii

et al. 2010

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

114

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Advantages of the robotic system with regard to precise planning and accuracy of the intraoperative procedure had been shown in a study by Honl et al(2003), although there was higher complication rate in the robotic-operated group compared to the conventional one. An additional operation is needed for pin placement for robotic operation, and the operation time is longer than that of conventional operation (Honl et al, 2003;Bargar et al, 1998). Bargar et al (1998) reported the surgical time and blood loss were significantly greater for patients in the robotic system group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The dimensional accuracy of preparation of femoral cavity in cementless total hip arthroplasty

Hahne

Hassenpflug

2004

J. Zheijang Univ.-Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Objective: To observe the accuracy of femoral preparation and the position of the cementless prosthesis in femoral cavity, and to compare the results between the computer-assisted surgical group (CASPAR) and the conventional group. Methods: Ten femoral components were implanted either manually or by CASPAR in cadaver femurs. The specimens were cut to 3 mm thick slices. Microradiograms of every slice were sent to a computer for analysis with special software (IDL). The gaps and the medullary cavities between component and bone, the direct bone contact area of the implant surface, the gap width and the percentage of gap and bone contact area were measured in every slice. Results: In the proximal implant coated with HA of the CASPAR group, the average percentage of bone contact reached 93.2% (ranging from 87.6% to 99.7%); the average gap percentage was 2.9% (ranging from 0.3% to 7.8%); the maximum gap width was 0.81 mm and the average gap width was only 0.20 mm. While in the conventional group, the average percentage of bone contact reached 60.1% (ranging from 49.2% to 70.4%); the average gap percentage was 32.8% (ranging from 25.1% to 39.9%); the maximum gap width was 2.97 mm and the average gap width was 0.77 mm. The average gap around the implant in the CASPAR group was only 9% of that in the manual group; the maximum and average gap widths were only about 26% of those in the manual group. On the other hand, the CASPAR group showed 33% higher bone contact than the manual group. Conclusion: With the use of robotics-assisted system, significant progress can be achieved for femoral preparation in total hip arthroplasty.

show abstract

Characteristics and State of the Art

Dombre¹,

Mathelin

Troccaz³

2013

Medical Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of Robotic-Assisted and Manual Implantation of a Primary Total Hip Replacement

Cited by 206 publications

References 15 publications

A Comparison between Robotic-assisted and Manual Implantation of Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty

A Comparison between Robotic-assisted and Manual Implantation of Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty

The dimensional accuracy of preparation of femoral cavity in cementless total hip arthroplasty

Characteristics and State of the Art

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About