Skip to main content
Log in

Robot-assisted primary cementless total hip arthroplasty using surface registration techniques: a short-term clinical report

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare non-fiducial based surface registration technique (DigiMatch) with the conventional locator pin-based registration technique in performing cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) using ROBODOC system.

Methods

Eighty-one THA were performed using pin-based technique and forty-three were performed using the DigiMatch technique. The average follow-up term was 38 months.

Results

Postoperatively, the Japanese Orthopedic Association hip scores were significantly better in the DigiMatch group than in pin-based group. The accuracy of postoperative stem alignment of the DigiMatch technique was comparable with that of pin-based method.

Conclusions

No need for prior pin implantation surgery and no concern for pin related knee pain were the advantages of DigiMatch technique. Short-term follow-up clinical results showed that DigiMatch ROBODOC THA was safe and effective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amin DV, Kanade T, DiGioia AM 3rd et al (2003) Ultrasound registration of the bone surface for surgical navigation. Comput Aided Surg 8(1): 1–16. doi:10.3109/10929080309146097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Brooker AF, Bowerman JW, Robinson RA et al (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55(8): 1629–1632

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Crowe JF, Mani VJ, Ranawat CS (1979) Total hip replacement in congenital dislocation and dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 61(1): 15–23

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dorr LD (1985) Optimizing results of total joint arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 34: 401–404

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH (1987) Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 69(1): 45–55

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Engh CA, Glassman AH, Suthers KE (1990) The case for porous-coated hip implants. The femoral side. Clin Orthop Relat Res 261: 63–81

    Google Scholar 

  7. Glozman D, Shoham M, Fischer A (2001) A surface-matching technique for robot-assisted registration. Comput Aided Surg 6(5): 259–269

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Herring JL, Dawant BM, Maurer CR Jr et al (1998) Surface-based registration of CT images to physical space for image-guided surgery of the spine: a sensitivity study. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 17(5): 743–752. doi:10.1109/42.736029

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Honl M, Dierk O, Gauck C et al (2003) Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual implantation of a primary total hip replacement. A prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85(8): 1470–1478

    Google Scholar 

  10. Nishihara S, Sugano N, Nishii T et al (2006) Comparison between hand rasping and robotic milling for stem implantation in cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(7): 957–966. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2006.01.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nogler M, Maurer H, Wimmer C et al (2001) Knee pain caused by a fiducial marker in the medial femoral condyle: a clinical and anatomic study of 20 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 72(5): 477–480. doi:10.1080/000164701753532808

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Paul HA, Bargar WL, Mittlestadt B et al (1992) Development of a surgical robot for cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 285: 57–66

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Schicho K, Figl M, Seemann R et al (2007) Comparison of laser surface scanning and fiducial marker-based registration in frameless stereotaxy. Technical note. J Neurosurg 106(4): 704–709. doi:10.3171/jns.2007.106.4.704

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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(4): 301–306. doi:10.1002/rcs.161

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shima Y (1971) Present status of surgical treatment of arthrosis deformans of the hip and summary of therapeutic evaluation. Nippon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 45(10): 828–831

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sugano N, Sasama T, Sato Y et al (2001) Accuracy evaluation of surface-based registration methods in a computer navigation system for hip surgery performed through a posterolateral approach. Comput Aided Surg 6(4): 195–203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tamura Y, Sugano N, Sasama T et al (2005) Surface-based registration accuracy of CT-based image-guided spine surgery. Eur Spine J 14(3): 291–297. doi:10.1007/s00586-004-0797-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nobuo Nakamura.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nakamura, N., Sugano, N., Nishii, T. et al. Robot-assisted primary cementless total hip arthroplasty using surface registration techniques: a short-term clinical report. Int J CARS 4, 157–162 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-009-0286-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-009-0286-1

Keywords

Navigation