ORTHOPEDICS TODAY February 2010
The next wave of robotic and navigational technology in orthopedics is
still evolving
Semi-active robots and patient-specific templating and instrumentation
will aid in surgeon accuracy, timing and positive results.
by Anthony M. DiGioia, MD; Branislav Jaramaz, PhD
|
 Anthony M.
DiGioia III
|
Like many innovative concepts, robotics and navigation are still in
transition, looking for the best match between the new technologies and
clinical needs. From that field, two technologies — semi-active
(collaborative) robotics and
patient-specific templating — are currently attracting
most of the attention. Coupled with less-invasive surgical techniques and
innovative implant design, they offer new opportunities for surgeons to develop
more reliable, efficient and accurate practices.
Patient-specific templates
Although the idea of patient-specific cutting and drilling templates was
introduced by Radermacher in the early 90s, it has not been widely recognized
in the joint reconstruction community until recently. This concept combines
three-dimensional surgical planning with rapid design and manufacturing of
custom cutting or drilling templates. These templates uniquely mate with the
bone and incorporate drilling or cutting guides consistent with the surgical
plan. Because all the planning and preparation is performed before surgery,
this approach shortens the preparation time in the operating room and
significantly reduces instrumentation.
Story continues below↓
The idea for patient-specific templating was originally introduced in
spine surgery for pedicle screw placement, using CT-based planning, and did not
appear to be practical for joint replacement. Since the mating surfaces have to
be clearly visible in the CT scan, any areas with cartilage would not be
suitable as mating surfaces and the template would have to mate with the extra
articular cortical bone. Wider surgical access — to reach extra-articular
bone — and larger incisions were required and that was not clinically
acceptable.
Recently introduced systems circumvent this requirement and allow the
templates to be directly applied to the joint surface, permitting less-invasive
techniques. A number of systems have been introduced that incorporate similar
basic principles of templating. The iFit/iJig image-to-implant technology
(ConforMIS) approach relies on CT or MRI scans. During surgery, the surgeon
must remove any remaining cartilage until the articular bone is exposed in
order to create a correct mating surface. This approach is coupled with a
patient-specific custom resurfacing implant that can be uni- or bicompartmental
or for a total knee arthroplasty.
Instrumentation
OtisKnee (OtisMed), Visionaire patient-matched instrumentation (Smith
& Nephew), Signature (Biomet) and Patient Specific Instruments (Zimmer,
Inc.) all rely on MRI imaging to capture the patient-specific knee anatomy,
including the cartilage. Based on the surgical plan, custom fitted positioning
guides are designed and manufactured using rapid prototyping technology. In the
Biomet and Zimmer approaches, these templates are used to guide the insertion
of pins which in turn guide standard cutting guides.
In the OtisMed and Smith & Nephew approaches, the cutting guides are
already incorporated into templates. All these templating systems require that
the CT or MRI images are acquired in advance of surgery, sent to the
manufacturer for image processing and pre-planning. After the surgeon’s
finalization and approval of the surgical plan, the manufacturer produces the
templates and ships them in sterile packaging to be used in surgery.
|
 The Precision Freehand Sculptor (Blue Belt
Technologies Inc.) has robotic controls in the cutter.
|
 This graphical user interface indicates a
surgical plan for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Images: Blue Belt Technologies
Inc. |
Semi-active robots
Another significant recent development is a new class of
“semi-active”
robots. These systems combine the awareness and flexibility
strengths of the surgeon and the advantages of accuracy, precision and rapid
reaction through robotic technology. Compared to conventional robots, they
offer a much more user-friendly platform, acting more like intelligent tools.
Combined with the novel bone-sparing implants, particularly those for knee
resurfacing, they could simplify difficult and heavily instrumented procedures
while making them less invasive and more accurate.
Acrobot Sculptor (Acrobot LTD), Mako Rio (Mako Surgical) and the
Precision Freehand Sculptor – “PFS” (Blue Belt Technologies,
Inc.) all share the same basic concept — allowing a high speed surgical
bur to only remove bone as determined by a preoperative surgical plan. These
systems extend the conventional framework of surgical navigation –
tracking the bones and tools of interest in real time, comparing this
information to the surgical plan and communicating it to the surgeon – and
add robotic control of the bone cutting tool. However, there are significant
differences in how this basic concept is implemented for each of these systems.
Acrobot and Mako are haptic devices, and both require robotic arms that
resist the motion of the bur when the surgeon tries to move it beyond a cutting
envelope. They prevent further cutting by counteracting the force applied by
the surgeon, in essence “pushing back.” Since the bone is not
immobilized, it needs to be tracked so that the computer can compensate for its
motion in real time by calculating the relative position of the bur relative to
the bone. In addition to the robotic arm, Mako uses optical tracking with
infrared cameras/emitters and reflective spheres, typically seen in surgical
navigation, while Acrobot relies on mechanical linkages in which a mechanical
arm is attached to the bone and connected to the cart which is also a
deployment base for the robot.
Blue Belt’s PFS puts all the robotic controls inside the cutter, so
there are no robotic arms or mechanical linkages. PFS instead prevents the bur
from cutting the bone either by withdrawing the bur into a protective sleeve,
or by controlling its rotation speed. Employing these principles significantly
simplifies the design of the device, resulting in a light and handheld portable
device, slightly larger than a standard high speed arthroscopic bur. The
surgeon’s ability to move is unrestricted, ergonomics are improved and
valuable operating room space is not crowded with bulky equipment.
Consequently, the costs of manufacturing are also much lower. PFS has been
demonstrated to function with exiting navigation platforms already in clinical
use, both image-based and image-free, and to support and enhance minimally
invasive bone preparation.
All of these new technologies are also beginning to inspire and enable a
new generation of implants – patient-specific and bone-sparing, permitting
the development of a new generation of minimally invasive techniques for both
large and small joint reconstruction surgery.
For more information
- Anthony M. DiGioia III, MD, and Branislav Jaramaz, PhD, can be
reached at Renaissance Orthopaedics, PC, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Innovation Center, Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Disclosure: Both authors are shareholders in Blue Belt Technologies.
References:
- Brisson G, Kanade T, DiGioia AM, Jaramaz B. Precision Freehand
Sculpting of Bone. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on
Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention.
2004:105-112.
- Radermacher K, Staudte H-W, Rau G. Computer-Assisted Matching of
Planning and Execution in Orthopedic Surgery. Proceedings of the 15th
Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS. 1993:946-947.