Orthopedics

CME Review Article 

Computer-assisted Navigation in Orthopedic Surgery

Andreas F. Mavrogenis, MD; Olga D. Savvidou, MD; George Mimidis, MD; John Papanastasiou, MD; Dimitrios Koulalis, MD; Nikolaos Demertzis, MD; Panayiotis J. Papagelopoulos, MD, DSC

Abstract

Educational Objectives

As a result of reading this article, physicians should be able to:

1. Identify the available types of computer-assisted navigation in orthopedic surgery.

2. Review the results of related series using computer-assisted navigation in orthopedic surgery.

3. Summarize the clinical applications of computer-assisted navigation in orthopedic surgery.

4. Recognize the disadvantages and pitfalls of computer-assisted navigation in orthopedic surgery.

Computer-assisted navigation has a role in some orthopedic procedures. It allows the surgeons to obtain real-time feedback and offers the potential to decrease intraoperative errors and optimize the surgical result. Computer-assisted navigation systems can be active or passive. Active navigation systems can either perform surgical tasks or prohibit the surgeon from moving past a predefined zone. Passive navigation systems provide intraoperative information, which is displayed on a monitor, but the surgeon is free to make any decisions he or she deems necessary. This article reviews the available types of computer-assisted navigation, summarizes the clinical applications and reviews the results of related series using navigation, and informs surgeons of the disadvantages and pitfalls of computer-assisted navigation in orthopedic surgery.

The authors are from the First Department of Orthopaedics (AFM, ODS, GM, DK, PJP), Athens University Medical School, ATTIKON University Hospital, Athens, Greece; and Department of Orthopaedics (JP, ND), Ag. Anargyroi Hospital, Athens, Greece.

The material presented in any Keck School of Medicine of USC continuing education activity does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Orthopedics or Keck School of Medicine of USC. Neither Orthopedics nor Keck School of Medicine of USC nor the authors endorse or recommend any techniques, commercial products, or manufacturers. The authors may discuss the use of materials and/or products that have not yet been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. All readers and continuing education participants should verify all information before treating patients or using any product.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Andreas F. Mavrogenis, MD, First Department of Orthopaedics, ATTIKON University Hospital, Athens University Medical School, 41 Ventouri St, 15562, Holargos, Athens, Greece (afm@otenet.gr).

CME Accreditation

This activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education through the joint sponsorship of Keck School of Medicine of USC and Orthopedics. Keck School of Medicine of USC is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

Keck School of Medicine of USC designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

This CME activity is primarily targeted to orthopedic surgeons, hand surgeons, head and neck surgeons, trauma surgeons, physical medicine specialists, and rheumatologists. There is no specific background requirement for participants taking this activity.

Full Disclosure Policy

In accordance with the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education’s Standards for Commercial Support, all CME providers are required to disclose to the activity audience the relevant financial relationships of the planners, teachers, and authors involved in the development of CME content. An individual has a relevant financial relationship if he or she has a financial relationship in any amount occurring in the last 12 months with a commercial interest whose products or services are discussed in the CME activity content over which the individual has control.

The authors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr Aboulafia, CME Editor, has no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr D’Ambrosia, Editor-in-Chief, has no relevant financial relationships to disclose. The staff of Orthopedics have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Unlabeled and Investigational Usage

The audience is advised that this continuing medical education activity may contain references to unlabeled uses of FDA-approved products or to products not approved by the FDA for use in the United States. The faculty members have been made aware of their obligation to disclose such usage.

 

Abstract

Educational Objectives

As a result of reading this article, physicians should be able to:

1. Identify the available types of computer-assisted navigation in orthopedic surgery.

2. Review the results of related series using computer-assisted navigation in orthopedic surgery.

3. Summarize the clinical applications of computer-assisted navigation in orthopedic surgery.

4. Recognize the disadvantages and pitfalls of computer-assisted navigation in orthopedic surgery.

Computer-assisted navigation has a role in some orthopedic procedures. It allows the surgeons to obtain real-time feedback and offers the potential to decrease intraoperative errors and optimize the surgical result. Computer-assisted navigation systems can be active or passive. Active navigation systems can either perform surgical tasks or prohibit the surgeon from moving past a predefined zone. Passive navigation systems provide intraoperative information, which is displayed on a monitor, but the surgeon is free to make any decisions he or she deems necessary. This article reviews the available types of computer-assisted navigation, summarizes the clinical applications and reviews the results of related series using navigation, and informs surgeons of the disadvantages and pitfalls of computer-assisted navigation in orthopedic surgery.

The authors are from the First Department of Orthopaedics (AFM, ODS, GM, DK, PJP), Athens University Medical School, ATTIKON University Hospital, Athens, Greece; and Department of Orthopaedics (JP, ND), Ag. Anargyroi Hospital, Athens, Greece.

The material presented in any Keck School of Medicine of USC continuing education activity does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Orthopedics or Keck School of Medicine of USC. Neither Orthopedics nor Keck School of Medicine of USC nor the authors endorse or recommend any techniques, commercial products, or manufacturers. The authors may discuss the use of materials and/or products that have not yet been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. All readers and continuing education participants should verify all information before treating patients or using any product.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Andreas F. Mavrogenis, MD, First Department of Orthopaedics, ATTIKON University Hospital, Athens University Medical School, 41 Ventouri St, 15562, Holargos, Athens, Greece (afm@otenet.gr).

CME Accreditation

This activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education through the joint sponsorship of Keck School of Medicine of USC and Orthopedics. Keck School of Medicine of USC is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

Keck School of Medicine of USC designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

This CME activity is primarily targeted to orthopedic surgeons, hand surgeons, head and neck surgeons, trauma surgeons, physical medicine specialists, and rheumatologists. There is no specific background requirement for participants taking this activity.

Full Disclosure Policy

In accordance with the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education’s Standards for Commercial Support, all CME providers are required to disclose to the activity audience the relevant financial relationships of the planners, teachers, and authors involved in the development of CME content. An individual has a relevant financial relationship if he or she has a financial relationship in any amount occurring in the last 12 months with a commercial interest whose products or services are discussed in the CME activity content over which the individual has control.

The authors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr Aboulafia, CME Editor, has no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr D’Ambrosia, Editor-in-Chief, has no relevant financial relationships to disclose. The staff of Orthopedics have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Unlabeled and Investigational Usage

The audience is advised that this continuing medical education activity may contain references to unlabeled uses of FDA-approved products or to products not approved by the FDA for use in the United States. The faculty members have been made aware of their obligation to disclose such usage.

 

Computer-assisted navigation was initially used in orthopedic spinal surgery more than 15 years ago, with the goal of improving the accuracy of pedicle screw insertion.1 Since then, it has gained wide acceptance among orthopedic surgeons and has become an invaluable tool for some orthopedic procedures, such as reconstructive hip and knee, sports injury, trauma, spine, and tumor surgery.2–6 Computer-assisted navigation offers surgeons real-time feedback of the surgical field, enabling them to adjust the surgical technique to improve postoperative outcomes and decrease intraoperative errors.

Types of Computer-assisted Navigation

Computer-assisted navigation systems can be active or passive.7,8 Active navigation systems can either perform surgical tasks or prohibit the surgeon from moving past a predefined zone. Passive navigation systems provide intraoperative information displayed on a monitor, but the surgeon is free to make any decisions he or she deems necessary.7 Based on the method of referencing information, computer-assisted navigation systems are further classified into computed tomography (CT) based, fluoroscopy based, and imageless.8

Computed tomography–based navigation systems use CT scans of the area of interest. The CT scans are performed either pre- or intraoperatively with an O-arm (Medtronic Navigation, Inc, Minneapolis, Minnesota) and used to reconstruct 3-dimensional (3-D) images.9 Two working modes can be used: guidance and real-time. In guidance mode, the operative steps and actions are planned preoperatively and are displayed on the monitor; intraoperatively, the surgeon has to match the operative actions with the virtual ones. In real-time mode, the instruments and implants can be visualized and navigated as they are moved in the surgical field. Computed tomography–based navigation offers a precise representation of the surgical anatomy and allows for precise placement of the implants without the need for preoperative planning. However, the use of a CT scan is associated with additional cost and increased radiation for the patient.7

Fluoroscopy-based navigation systems use several markers placed on specific anatomical landmarks, which are captured by a small series of fluoroscopic images. A computer software program synthesizes these images to relate the surgical area of interest in space and identify the position of the instruments and implants.7 An advantage of this system is the virtual fluoroscopy, which allows surgeons to take arbitrary images intraoperatively and then choose the most appropriate position from the gallery of these images. In addition, fluoroscopy-based navigation is independent of intraoperative changes in the patient’s position because navigation is only performed using the chosen image.6 An evolution of standard fluoroscopy-based navigation is 3-D fluoroscopy-based navigation, which not only offers all of the benefits of virtual fluoroscopy but also permits visualization in the axial plane, basically functioning as an intraoperative CT scanner. Using a computer software program, the 2-D images are converted into coronal, sagittal, and axial reconstructions, similar in appearance to CT images.10

Imageless navigation systems consist of a computer platform, a tracking system (usually an optical camera), and a set of infrared markers. Depending on the planned operation, a predefined number of markers are positioned to specific anatomical bony landmarks using pointer probes with the method of triangulation. When needed, kinematics can also be used to determine the center of joint rotation.9 The referencing information is then processed by the computer software, which uses a large number of stored CT scans to construct a model that fits the registered surface points.7 The main advantage of imageless navigation is the complete avoidance of radiation for the patient and surgeons. The disadvantage is that it relies mainly on the surgeon’s precision, experience, ability, and learning curve to mark the optimal anatomical bony landmarks for the application of the pointer probes.7

Total Knee Arthroplasty

Restoration of the normal mechanical axis of the knee joint is important for long-term survival of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) prostheses to prevent eccentric load sharing, abnormal polyethylene wear, premature loosening, instability, and early implant failure.11–14 Optimal knee axis alignment correlates with less pain, better knee range of motion, faster rehabilitation, and improved quality of life for patients.15,16 Fixation of the prosthesis needs to be accurate in all 3 axes to ensure smooth tracking of the patella and soft tissue balance and to avoid notching the anterior femoral cortex.17,18 However, knee axis alignment errors greater than 3° may occur in up to 20% of all TKA procedures, even those performed by experienced surgeons.12 Computer-assisted navigation has been associated with significantly less deviation from the 3° threshold of mechanical axis malalignment and better alignment of both the femoral and tibial prostheses in the coronal and sagittal planes (Figure 1).19

Imageless navigation in total knee arthroplasty. Obtaining the navigation referencing information with the probe at the femoral condyles. Note that the navigation pins are placed outside the incision. The referencing information provides the knee alignment before the osteotomies (A). In this patient, the initial mechanical axis in extension was 2.5° varus and 6.5° extension lag (B) and in flexion was 0.5° valgus and 118° flexion (C). Tibial cut planning (D) and verification (E) were performed, and the yellow and green lines should match. Verification of the femoral cut in the distal (F) and frontal planes (G) and implant planning (H) were performed. Final limb alignment of the mechanical axis was 0.5° valgus and 0° extension (I), and 1.0° valgus and 127.5° flexion (J).

Figure 1: Imageless navigation in total knee arthroplasty. Obtaining the navigation referencing information with the probe at the femoral condyles. Note that the navigation pins are placed outside the incision. The referencing information provides the knee alignment before the osteotomies (A). In this patient, the initial mechanical axis in extension was 2.5° varus and 6.5° extension lag (B) and in flexion was 0.5° valgus and 118° flexion (C). Tibial cut planning (D) and verification (E) were performed, and the yellow and green lines should match. Verification of the femoral cut in the distal (F) and frontal planes (G) and implant planning (H) were performed. Final limb alignment of the mechanical axis was 0.5° valgus and 0° extension (I), and 1.0° valgus and 127.5° flexion (J).

Knees with complex deformities are prone to measurement errors in radiographs performed while the patient is in a standing position; the average difference in the mechanical axis between the supine and standing position can be up to 1.6°.20 Therefore, surgeons using computer-assisted navigation for TKA should be aware that navigation may underestimate a major perceived deformity in preoperative planning; in this setting, soft tissue release and bone cuts should be performed with caution to not overcorrect what seems like a major deformity on preoperative radiographs.21

Adequate flexion and extension gap balancing is important in TKA for optimal knee kinematics and the prevention of polyethylene wear and loosening.14,22 Extension gap depends on soft tissue release and flexion gap on appropriate femoral sizing and implant rotation.23 Tight gaps are associated with reduced range of motion and flexion contractures of greater than 4°, whereas loose gaps are associated with knee recurvatum, pain, instability, and accelerated wear due to eccentric loading and increased muscle force required to control the unstable knee.24,25 Computer-assisted navigation has been shown to achieve more precise soft tissue balancing and prevent joint line elevation compared with the standard TKA technique.23 In addition, computer-assisted navigation allows surgeons to quantify the soft tissue balancing before the femoral cut is made, to select the size of the femoral component that optimally tenses the ligaments throughout the full range of knee motion, and to make adjustments independently to each collateral ligament.22,26

A major complication of TKA is fat embolism,27 which has been associated with an increase in the intramedullary pressure as occurs during the placement of the intramedullary guide needed for the alignment of the femoral cutting block in conventional TKA. A major advantage of computer-assisted navigation is the use of extramedullary guides, which potentially reduce the risk of fat embolisms27–29 and blood loss and transfusion requirements.8,30,31 The advantage of computer-assisted navigation has also been supported for revision TKA7; in this setting, it allows the surgeon to check the mechanical axis at every step of the procedure, to visualize the joint line in cases with significant bone loss, and to facilitate the fixation of the revision prostheses at the coronal and sagittal planes.7 However, caution is necessary during the registration process of the referencing information in cases of revision TKA; CT-based navigation registration may be flawed due to artifacts, whereas imageless navigation registration may be inaccurate due to bone loss that complicates the definition of surgical landmarks.7

Total Hip Arthroplasty

The orientation of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is considered an important variable for a successful THA.32–35 Cup malorientation is associated with increased rates of dislocation, impingement, polyethylene wear, and loosening.32,33 Using mechanical guides, positioning of the acetabular component may be inaccurate.35 Computed tomography–based and imageless navigation significantly improve the surgeon’s ability to insert the acetabular component in the optimal orientation.36,37 However, caution is necessary during referencing the pubic tubercles because they are covered by a thick layer of soft tissues; it is necessary to position the referencing probe as close to the bone as possible because cup anteversion will otherwise be underestimated by a mean of 3°.38

Restoration of leg length is also important for the outcome of patients undergoing THA. Leg-length discrepancy can cause pain, stiffness, heterotopic ossification, and early implant failure.39 Different techniques using Kirschner wires and Steinmann pins have been described, with different success rates for intraoperative measurement and leg-length restoration. In current clinical practice, computer-assisted navigation seems to be the most accurate method to obtain leg-length equality.40

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty has gained popularity as an alternative to THA in younger patients due to preservation of the femoral bone stock, improved hip stability and proprioception, and a lower risk for leg-length discrepancy.41 However, recent discussion about the performance and complications of metal-on-metal arthroplasties has questioned its role compared with THA. Moreover, failure of the femoral prosthesis is more common than that of the acetabulum, making the accuracy of fixation of the femoral prosthesis more important.42 Computer-assisted navigation allows for accurate reconstruction of the femoral bone and optimal fixation of the femoral component.43

Corrective Osteotomy

High tibial osteotomy has been used for more than 50 years to treat unicompartmental varus gonarthrosis in select young patients.44,45 It enables the redistribution of body weight to the normal lateral compartment, unloading the affected medial knee compartment. When the mechanical axis passes through the center of the knee, the medial compartment bears 67% of the load during single-leg stance. If the mechanical axis is moved to 6° valgus, 60% of the load is placed on the lateral compartment and 40% on the medial compartment.44 However, using the standard technique, approximately 20% of patients will have a suboptimal limb correction due to inadequate preoperative planning, inappropriate wedge osteotomies, or poor intraoperative control of the knee axis alignment.45 Computer-assisted navigation provides real-time intraoperative information about the sagittal, coronal, and transverse axes of the knee joint and can compensate for the shortcomings of preoperative radiographic planning.46 In addition, it may reduce the risk of valgus undercorrection in the coronal plane and posterior tibial slope overcorrection in the sagittal plane.47

Closed reduction and casting is the treatment of choice for most patients with distal radius fractures. However, approximately 5% of these fractures will result in malunion; patients will malunion may experience chronic wrist pain and compromised hand function.48 When symptoms or deformities are severe, corrective osteotomy of the distal radius is necessary. Conventionally, the shape and size of the osteotomy is estimated preoperatively on radiographs or CT scans; however, preoperative imaging is often inadequate to calculate the accurate displacement and rotation inside the joint.49

Several computer-assisted navigation techniques have been described that have promising results for the surgical and functional outcomes of patients with distal radius malunion.49,50 These techniques use the contralateral radius, if normal, for referencing information to restore the affected side. They offer surgeons the ability to perform multiple simulations of the surgical procedures preoperatively, which can be used to optimize the plan and identify potential problems during realignment, thus producing consistently better correction of the dorsal angulation and rotation of the radius compared with the conventional techniques.50

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Anterior cruciate ligament rupture is one of the most common sports injuries in young athletes, requiring surgical reconstruction to allow patients to return to an active lifestyle and prevent secondary cartilage and menisci damage.51 However, inaccurate placement of either the femoral or the tibial tunnel may occur in up to 15% of procedures using standard surgical techniques; this may result in laxity, instability, suboptimal clinical results, and increased revision rates.52 Computer-assisted navigation is currently used to improve the accuracy and reproducibility of the tibial and femoral tunnels and restore the normal knee kinematics by measuring anatomical references and graft isometry.5,53–55 Most studies have shown better positioning of the femoral tunnel with computer-assisted navigation.55 With respect to the tibial tunnel, although the mean positioning is similar to the standard techniques, the deviation is decreased with the use of computer-assisted navigation techniques.53,54 However, despite these advantages, conflicting results exist regarding knee function and stability in patients treated with computer-assisted navigation for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.56

Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is considered the reconstruction of choice for improved anterior and rotational knee stability.57 However, precise drilling of the femoral and tibial tunnels is technically demanding because the bundle insertion sites change depending on the flexion angle of the knee; the insertion sites are vertically oriented in extension but become horizontal at 90° of knee flexion.58 In this setting, computer-assisted navigation may provide intraoperative imaging assistance, leading to consistently more accurate results.54,59

Cartilage Defects of the Knee

If left untreated, chondral defects in the weight-bearing areas of the knee joint can lead to early arthritis due to increased focal contact pressures.60 Transplantation of autologous osteochondral grafts is commonly used to treat small (less than 2 cm2) full-thickness cartilage defects.61 The technique of mosaicplasty involves removal of cylindrical grafts from a nonweight-bearing area of the unilateral knee and transferring them to the debrided defect.62 It is important to achieve as congruent and smooth surfaces as possible to restore normal-level contact pressures. This depends mainly on the angle and depth of the graft insertion,63 as well as the size and shape of the grafts and the overall surface covering.64 This procedure is extremely demanding because the cartilaginous plugs need to be press-fitted relatively parallel to each other while at the same time remaining perpendicular to the joint surface.65 Inaccurate placement can predispose to loosening of the cartilaginous plugs and incongruency of the articular surface.66 Navigation can provide accurate information and visualization of the graft, as well as the graft and recipient socket, producing results that are difficult to achieve with the conventional technique.64 This applies even more when the procedure is performed arthroscopically because of the limited visualization and the 30° optical angle of the arthroscope.65 Currently, all available information derives from experimental cadaveric studies; therefore, further research is necessary to draw important conclusions for computer-assisted navigation for cartilage defects of the knee.

Fracture Treatment

Currently, minimally invasive fracture reduction and osteosynthesis techniques are used for the treatment of fractures. These techniques rely on intraoperative fluoroscopy images obtained by the use of an image intensifier.67–73 However, extensive operative fluoroscopy is often necessary for optimal reduction and osteosynthesis.68 Computer-assisted navigation has been used to optimize fracture reduction and osteosynthesis and decrease intraoperative fluoroscopy time in various percutaneous management procedures for fractures of the femoral neck and shaft, the iliac wing, the sacroiliac joint and acetabulum, and the tibial plateau and shaft, as well as 3- and 4-part fractures of the humeral head.4,69,70,73–76

Using fluoroscopy-based computer-assisted navigation for the use of percutaneous osteosynthesis with cannulated screws to treat femoral neck fractures may allow surgeons to accurately determine the entry point and angle of insertion of the screws in 2 planes prior to the placement of the guide wires. Thus, it reduces the number of the drilling attempts and optimizes the orientation of the screws.69,70

Standard intramedullary nailing for femoral shaft fractures has been associated with more than 15% of rotational deformity in up to 30% of fractures.71,72 Computer-assisted navigation enables anatomic reduction of the fracture and substantially reduces the need for intraoperative fluoroscopic imaging.73–75 Data from the normal contralateral femur can be used for referencing information to estimate limb length and rotation; this is especially important in patients with comminuted fractures in which the appropriate alignment is difficult to obtain using standard techniques.73 Despite the fact that extra time is necessary to obtain the referencing information for computer-assisted navigation for femoral shaft fractures, much time can be saved intraoperatively due to the decreased need for imaging for fracture reduction and nail insertion and locking.74 Imageless computer-assisted navigation can also be used for the insertion of distal locking screws in patients treated with intramedullary nailing for femur and tibia fractures.75

Shoulder Surgery

The function and survival of shoulder replacement arthroplasty depends on the proper positioning of the glenoid component.77,78 Improper orientation may lead to eccentric loading, increased stress on the bone-implant interface, loosening, and failure.78 However, the amount of reaming and fixation of the prosthesis in the proper orientation relies on the surgeon’s experience and skill.79 Computer-assisted navigation provides real-time feedback for proper glenoid reaming orientation and fixation of the prostheses in accurate orientation.80

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is usually reserved for patients with rotator cuff arthropathy and revision shoulder arthroplasty. Apart from proper alignment of the prostheses, stable fixation to the native glenoid is required.81 However, fixation may be difficult because of poor bone quality, reduced glenoid bone stock, and inadequate visualization of the anatomical landmarks. A previous biomechanical study showed that the inferior screw of the glenoid prosthesis is important for early stability of the prosthesis; this screw needs to be firmly placed within the scapular pillar.81 A recent study showed that screw fixation is more accurate with the use of computer-assisted navigation and can potentially decrease intra- and postoperative complications.82

The functional outcome and survival of shoulder hemiarthroplasty require restoration of normal anatomy and kinematics, which may be challenging in patients with comminuted humeral head fractures.83 Often, the humeral head is displaced inferoposteriorly, which results in abnormal joint kinematics, posterior glenoid wear, instability, and secondary arthritis.84 Computer-assisted navigation using the contralateral shoulder, if normal, for referencing information can provide an approximation of the normal anatomy of the fractured humerus, increasing the accuracy and consistency of the anatomical restoration of the prosthetic joint compared with the conventional technique.85,86

Computer-assisted navigation has also been used to improve the accuracy of the insertion of bone anchors on the glenoid rim for the repair of anterior labral tears.87,88 The anchor has to be inserted on the glenoid rim at just the right angle to achieve maximal bone support and increase the pullout force.87 Improper insertion predisposes to failure of the reconstruction and possibly damage of the articular cartilage. Computer-assisted navigation offers a multiplanar visualization throughout the procedure, resulting in a more accurate placement of the bone anchors.88

Spine Surgery

Computer-assisted navigation was first introduced in spinal surgery for accurate insertion of pedicle screws into the lumbar spine.89 Currently, it is used in a variety of spine procedures, such as spinal decompression, implant insertion, and minimally invasive surgical techniques aiming to improve the surgical outcome and decrease intraoperative complications.6,10,89–105 However, despite the current use of intraoperative fluoroscopy and electrophysiologic monitoring in spine surgery, the incidence of malpositioned spinal implants remain high, even among experienced surgeons, ranging from 5% to 41% for the lumbar spine and from 3% to 55% for the thoracic spine.91 Although many of these misplaced screws are not clinically significant, up to 25% of them may put visceral organs at risk.92 Computer-assisted navigation provides additional anatomical details that may improve the accuracy of spinal instrumentation and reduce the risk of neurological and vascular injuries.

In the cervical spine, CT-guided navigation has been used to facilitate insertion of C1–C2 transarticular screws in patients with atlantoaxial subluxation; by using navigation techniques, the rate of malpositioned screws and neurovascular complications has been significantly reduced.93 Computer-assisted navigation has also been used with excellent results for the insertion of transpedicular C2 screws in patients with traumatic spondylolisthesis of the axis vertebra (hangman’s fractures).6,94 In the lower cervical spine, computer-assisted transpedicular screw insertion has consistently better results,95 although the number of critical cortical breaches has not been statistically decreased.96

Instrumentation of the thoracic spine is particularly demanding due to the small size and variable anatomy of the thoracic pedicles and the narrow spinal canal. Although studies have shown that misplacement of the screws is approximately 20% without the use of intraoperative image guidance,10 this percentage remains unacceptably high when compared with CT-guided techniques, which is significantly lower at a range of 2% to 4.5%.97,98 Furthermore, the use of 3-D fluoroscopy-based navigation allows for direct intraoperative evaluation of the position of the screws, enabling immediate revision of the misplaced screws and, therefore, significantly reducing the rate of complications and the need for reoperation.99

The efficacy of computer-assisted instrumentation in the lumbar spine has been documented for approximately 15 years and has achieved a 5-fold decrease in the number of misplaced screws.100 Subsequent clinical studies further confirmed that computer image guidance greatly facilitates transpedicular instrumentation in the lumbar spine (Figures 2, 3).98,101 Intraoperative navigation is also useful for the placement of motion-sparing intervertebral devices, such as artificial disks, because their long-term survival and function depend on their optimal positioning.102

Computed tomography–based navigation in spinal surgery. Obtaining the navigation referencing information in the lumbar spine for transpedicular screw fixation in a patient with degenerative L5-S1 disk disease (A). Virtual guidance (B, C) and L4 transpedicular screw insertion (D, E) in the sagittal (left image) and axial planes (right image).

Figure 2: Computed tomography–based navigation in spinal surgery. Obtaining the navigation referencing information in the lumbar spine for transpedicular screw fixation in a patient with degenerative L5-S1 disk disease (A). Virtual guidance (B, C) and L4 transpedicular screw insertion (D, E) in the sagittal (left image) and axial planes (right image).

Computed tomography– (left images) and fluoroscopy-based (right images) navigation in spinal surgery for transpedicular screw fixation in a patient with degenerative lumbar disease. Obtaining the navigation referencing information with the probe on L4 (A) and L5 vertebra (B). Virtual guidance of the L4 transpedicular screw (C). The top images in each Figure show referencing information for transpedicular screw positioning, and the bottom images show virtual guidance of the transpedicular screw.

Figure 3: Computed tomography– (left images) and fluoroscopy-based (right images) navigation in spinal surgery for transpedicular screw fixation in a patient with degenerative lumbar disease. Obtaining the navigation referencing information with the probe on L4 (A) and L5 vertebra (B). Virtual guidance of the L4 transpedicular screw (C). The top images in each Figure show referencing information for transpedicular screw positioning, and the bottom images show virtual guidance of the transpedicular screw.

Decompression of the spine is often used to alleviate symptomatic compression of neural elements. However, to achieve adequate decompression and avoid damage to the surrounding neurovascular structures, thorough visualization of the relevant anatomy is required. In the cervical spine, computer-assisted navigation enables surgeons to achieve a more extensive anterior vertebrectomy, producing a more reliable and accurate decompression without violating the foramina.10 Similar favorable results have also been observed with CT-based navigation systems in the thoracic spine for complete spinal cord decompression without neurological or vascular complications.90

The main advantage of minimally invasive spinal procedures is that they require less extensive tissue dissection, thereby limiting iatrogenic injury of the paraspinal muscles; reducing postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, and absence from work; and improving functional outcomes. Computer-assisted navigation is ideally suited for minimally invasive spinal procedures because it offers the necessary spatial and anatomical data without requiring direct visualization of the spine.103–105 Three-dimensional fluoroscopy-assisted navigation has been used for a variety of spinal procedures, such as posterior cervical arthrodesis, kyphoplasty, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.103 Computer-assisted navigation has also been used with favorable results as an adjunct for thoracoscopic diskectomy104 and percutaneous insertion of translaminar facet screws.105

Musculoskeletal Tumor Surgery

Over the past 3 decades, advances in imaging, metallurgy, and implant design have enabled limb salvage surgery for musculoskeletal tumors, with excellent functional results without compromising survival and local recurrence.106–109 However, en bloc resection remains challenging in patients with pelvic and epiphyseal tumors.3,106–109 In these cases, computer-assisted navigation offers 3-D visualization of the tumor that enables preoperative planning of the level and margins of tumor resection on a computer platform; these data can then be used intraoperatively to facilitate the resection.110–113

Resection of epiphyseal or juxta-articular sarcomas requires precision to achieve tumor-free margins and preservation of the articular surface.114 Computer-assisted navigation allows surgeons to plan the optimal level of resection without compromising the surgical margins of resection.110 In the pelvis, the rate of contaminated margins after sarcoma resection ranges from 12% to 75%, and the rate of local recurrence ranges from 70% to 80%.115 In these locations, CT- and MRI-based navigation can be used for preoperative planning of the level of the osteotomies and improved intraoperative view,111 stabilization of the posterior pelvic ring (Figure 4) and spinopelvic fixation (Figure 5). Computer-assisted navigation is also particularly useful for the resection of periacetabular sarcomas and fixation of periacetabular prostheses.112,113

Computed tomography–based navigation in tumor surgery in a patient with pathological fracture of the sacrum from metastatic renal cancer. Virtual guidance of sacroiliac screws (A). Axial computed tomography scans before (B) and after (C) computer-assisted sacroiliac screw fixation.

Figure 4: Computed tomography–based navigation in tumor surgery in a patient with pathological fracture of the sacrum from metastatic renal cancer. Virtual guidance of sacroiliac screws (A). Axial computed tomography scans before (B) and after (C) computer-assisted sacroiliac screw fixation.

Multiplanar computed tomography–based navigation in tumor surgery in a patient with sacral metastasis involving the left sacroiliac joint. The navigation referencing information for iliac screw insertion is obtained (A). The probe’s eye (arrow) shows the tip of the left iliac screw is not inside the hip joint (B). Virtual guidance of the iliac screws (C). Anteroposterior (D) and lateral radiographs (E) after computer-assisted spinopelvic fixation.

Figure 5: Multiplanar computed tomography–based navigation in tumor surgery in a patient with sacral metastasis involving the left sacroiliac joint. The navigation referencing information for iliac screw insertion is obtained (A). The probe’s eye (arrow) shows the tip of the left iliac screw is not inside the hip joint (B). Virtual guidance of the iliac screws (C). Anteroposterior (D) and lateral radiographs (E) after computer-assisted spinopelvic fixation.

Disadvantages of Computer-Assisted Navigation

Potential disadvantages of computer-assisted navigation include an increase of operative time that may be up to 20 minutes (for TKAs),116 risk of fractures117 and superficial infection at the sites of probes insertion,118 need for a learning curve,119 delayed recovery of the quadriceps muscle,7 and increased cost compared with standard techniques. The risk of fractures at the sites of probe insertion has been almost alleviated with the use of novel navigation probes that use 3.2-mm instead of 4- or 5-mm pins.117 The increase in the rate of soft tissue infections has not been statistically significant.118

Computer-assisted navigation may seem cumbersome to inexperienced surgeons, but, after the appropriate learning curve (which is considered to be the first 30 operations for TKAs), the results and the mean navigation time are greatly improved.119 Delayed recovery of the quadriceps muscle has been observed after computer-assisted navigation with positioning of the probes within the surgical incision7; this can be avoided by percutaneous positioning of the probes outside of the operating field.

Pitfalls of Computer-assisted Navigation

Although computer-assisted navigation is more precise than the conventional techniques, it is still subject to errors. The tracking system of the navigation markers has an inherent error of 0.1- to 1-mm for each of the 3 coordinates in space.7 Also, the referencing probe may miss the intended bony structure due to overlying soft tissue or cartilage or the surgeon’s inexperience.38 In osteoporotic bones, the probes holding the markers may move, rendering the acquired data unreliable.9 In sclerotic bone, even if the cutting guides are placed in the optimal position using navigation, bending of the saw blade during the osteotomy may compromise the result.7 If cement fixation is used, malalignment may occur due to differences of the cement mantle around the prosthesis, even though the resection level may be excellent.7

Conclusion

“If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it.”120 Although this phrase, attributed to Lord Kelvin, is more than 100 years old, it expresses the current concept of navigation. Although navigation systems are still in their infancy, they can provide invaluable intraoperative information and assist surgeons in achieving consistently more accurate results. However, the majority of the referenced studies show a lack of improved clinical outcomes. Many show improved accuracy and better postoperative imaging, but they have not necessarily made their patients any better than they would have with conventional procedures. Therefore, long-term studies of computer-assisted navigation are needed to prove its benefit.

References

  1. Merloz P, Tonetti JI, Cinquin P, Lavallce S, Troccaz J, Pittet L. Computer-assisted surgery: automated screw placement in the vertebral pedicle. Chirurgie. 1998; 123(5):482–490. doi:10.1016/S0001-4001(99)80077-4 [CrossRef]
  2. Edwards TB, Gartsman GM, O’Connor DP, Sarin VK. Safety and utility of computer-aided shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17(3):503–508. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2007.10.005 [CrossRef]
  3. So TYC, Lam Y-L, Mak K-L. Computer-assisted navigation in bone tumor surgery: seamless workflow model and evolution of technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 468(11):2985–2991. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1465-7 [CrossRef]
  4. Leung KS, Tang N, Cheung LWH, Ng E. Image-guided navigation in orthopaedic trauma. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010; 92(10):1332–1337.
  5. Zaffagnini S, Klos TV, Bignozzi S. Computer-assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an evidence-based approach of the first 15 years. Arthroscopy. 2010; 26(4):546–554. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2009.09.018 [CrossRef]
  6. Gebhard F, Weidner A, Liener UC, Stöckle U, Arand M. Navigation at the spine. Injury. 2004; 35(suppl 1):S-A35–S-A-45. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2004.05.009 [CrossRef]
  7. Bae DK, Song SJ. Computer assisted navigation in knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg. 2011; 3(4):259–267. doi:10.4055/cios.2011.3.4.259 [CrossRef]
  8. Siston RA, Giori NJ, Goodman SB, Delp SL. Surgical navigation for total knee arthroplasty: a perspective. J Biomech. 2007; 40(4):728–735. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.01.006 [CrossRef]
  9. Amanatullah DF, Burrus MT, Sathappan SS, Levine B, Di Cesare PE. Applying computer-assisted navigation techniques to total hip and knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop. 2011; 40(8):419–426.
  10. Patel AA, Whang PG, Vaccaro AR. Overview of computer-assisted image-guided surgery of the spine. Sem Spine Surg. 2008; 20(3):186–194. doi:10.1053/j.semss.2008.06.005 [CrossRef]
  11. Werner FW, Ayers DC, Maletsky LP, Rullkoetter PJ. The effect of valgus/varus malalignment on load distribution in total knee replacements. J Biomech. 2005; 38(2):349–355. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.02.024 [CrossRef]
  12. Mahaluxmivala J, Bankes MJ, Nicolai P, Aldam CH, Allen PW. The effect of surgeon experience on component positioning in 673 Press Fit Condylar posterior cruciate-sacrificing total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty. 2001; 16(5):635–640. doi:10.1054/arth.2001.23569 [CrossRef]
  13. Hernández-Vaquero D, Suarez-Vazquez A, Iglesias-Fernandez S. Can computer assistance improve the clinical and functional scores in total knee arthroplasty?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469(12):3436–3442. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-2044-2 [CrossRef]
  14. Crottet D, Kowal J, Sarfert SA, et al. Ligament balancing in TKA: evaluation of a force-sensing device and the influence of patellar eversion and ligament release. J Biomech. 2007; 40(8):1709–1715. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.08.004 [CrossRef]
  15. Choong PF, Dowsey MM, Stoney JD. Does accurate anatomical alignment result in better function and quality of life? Comparing conventional and computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009; 24(4):560–569. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.02.018 [CrossRef]
  16. Longstaff LM, Sloan K, Stamp N, Scaddan M, Beaver R. Good alignment after total knee arthroplasty leads to faster rehabilitation and better function. J Arthroplasty. 2009; 24(4):570–578. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.03.002 [CrossRef]
  17. Laskin RS, Beksac B. Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004; 19(4):41–46. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2004.02.008 [CrossRef]
  18. Zalzal P, Backstein D, Gross AE, Papini M. Notching of the anterior femoral cortex during total knee arthroplasty characteristics that increase local stresses. J Arthroplasty. 2006; 21(5):737–743. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2005.08.020 [CrossRef]
  19. Hetaimish BM, Khan MM, Simunovic N, Al-Harbi HH, Bhandari M, Zalzal PK. Meta-analysis of navigation vs conventional total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012; 27(6):1177–1182. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.12.028 [CrossRef]
  20. Specogna AV, Birmingham TB, Hunt MA, et al. Radiographic measures of knee alignment in patients with varus gonarthrosis: effect of weightbearing status and associations with dynamic joint load. Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35(1):65–70. doi:10.1177/0363546506293024 [CrossRef]
  21. Yaffe MA, Koo SS, Stulberg SD. Radiographic and navigation measurements of TKA limb alignment do not correlate. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 466(11):2736–2744. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0427-9 [CrossRef]
  22. Winemaker MJ. Perfect balance in total knee arthroplasty: the elusive compromise. J Arthroplasty. 2002; 17(1):2–10. doi:10.1054/arth.2002.29321 [CrossRef]
  23. Pang H-N, Yeo S-J, Chong H-C, Chin P-L, Ong J, Lo N-N. Computer-assisted gap balancing technique improves outcome in total knee arthroplasty, compared with conventional measured resection technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011; 19(9):1496–1503. doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1483-3 [CrossRef]
  24. Van Hal CTH, Van Hellemondt GG, Wymenga AB, Jacobs WCH. The anterior-posterior laxity after total knee arthroplasty inserted with a ligament tensor. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007; 15(8):1019–1022. doi:10.1007/s00167-007-0333-9 [CrossRef]
  25. Ritter MA, Lutgring JD, Davis KE, Berend ME, Pierson JL, Meneghini RM. The role of flexion contracture on outcomes in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007; 22(8):1092–1096. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2006.11.009 [CrossRef]
  26. Bottros J, Gad B, Krebs V, Barsoum WK. Gap balancing in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006; 21(4 suppl 1):11–15. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2006.02.084 [CrossRef]
  27. Rodriguez RA, Tellier A, Grabowski J, et al. Cognitive dysfunction after total knee arthroplasty: effects of intraoperative cerebral embolization and postoperative complications. J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20(6):763–771. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2005.05.004 [CrossRef]
  28. Kalairajah Y, Cossey AJ, Verrall GM, Ludbrook G, Spriggins AJ. Are systemic emboli reduced in computer-assisted knee surgery? A prospective, randomised, clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88(2):198–202.
  29. O’Connor MI, Brodersen MP, Feinglass NG, Leone BJ, Crook JE, Switzer BE. Fat emboli in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study of computer-assisted navigation vs standard surgical technique. J Arthroplasty. 2010; 25(7):1034–1040. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2009.08.004 [CrossRef]
  30. Chauhan SK, Scott RG, Breidahl W, Beaver RJ. Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty versus a conventional jig-based technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004; 86(3):372–377. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.86B3.14643 [CrossRef]
  31. Kalairajah Y, Simpson D, Cossey AJ, Verrall GM, Spriggins AJ. Blood loss after total knee replacement: effects of computer-assisted surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87(11):1480–1482.
  32. Lewinnek GE, Lewis JL, Tarr R, Compere CL, Zimmerman JR. Dislocations after total hip-replacement arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978; 60(2):217–220.
  33. Najarian BC, Kilgore JE, Markel DC. Evaluation of component positioning in primary total hip arthroplasty using an imageless navigation device compared with traditional methods. J Arthroplasty. 2009; 24(1):15–21. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.01.004 [CrossRef]
  34. Beaumont E, Beaumont P, Odermat D, Fontaine I, Jansen H, Prince F. Clinical validation of computer-assisted navigation in total hip arthroplasty. Adv Orthop. 2011; 2011:171783.
  35. Honl M, Schwieger K, Salineros M, Jacobs J, Morlock M, Wimmer M. Orientation of the acetabular component. A comparison of five navigation systems with conventional surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88(10):1401–1405.
  36. Gandhi R, Marchie A, Farrokhyar F, Mahomed N. Computer navigation in total hip replacement: a meta-analysis. Int Orthop. 2009; 33(3):593–597. doi:10.1007/s00264-008-0539-6 [CrossRef]
  37. Parratte S, Argenson J-NA. Validation and usefulness of a computer-assisted cup-positioning system in total hip arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized, controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007; 89(3):494–499. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00529 [CrossRef]
  38. Lin F, Lim D, Wixson RL, Milos S, Hendrix RW, Makhsous M. Limitations of imageless computer-assisted navigation for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 26(4):596–605. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2010.05.027 [CrossRef]
  39. Parvizi J, Sharkey PF, Bissett GA, Rothman RH, Hozack WJ. Surgical treatment of limb-length discrepancy following total hip arthroplasty. Biomech. 2003; 85(12):2310–2317.
  40. Manzotti A, Cerveri P, De Momi E, Pullen C, Confalonieri N. Does computer-assisted surgery benefit leg length restoration in total hip replacement? Navigation versus conventional freehand. Int Orthop. 2011; 35(1):19–24. doi:10.1007/s00264-009-0903-1 [CrossRef]
  41. Daniel J, Pynsent PB, McMinn DJW. Metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip in patients under the age of 55 years with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004; 86(2):177–184. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.86B2.14600 [CrossRef]
  42. Beaulé PE, Campbell PA, Hoke R, Dorey F. Notching of the femoral neck during resurfacing arthroplasty of the hip: a vascular study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88(1):35–39.
  43. Bailey C, Gul R, Falworth M, Zadow S, Oakeshott R. Component alignment in hip resurfacing using computer navigation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 467(4):917–922. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0584-x [CrossRef]
  44. Amendola A, Panarella L. High tibial osteotomy for the treatment of unicompartmental arthritis of the knee. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005; 36(4):497–504. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2005.05.009 [CrossRef]
  45. Pearle AD, Goleski P, Musahl V, Kendoff D. Reliability of image-free navigation to monitor lower-limb alignment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(suppl 1):90–94. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01439 [CrossRef]
  46. Picardo NE, Khan W, Johnstone D. Computer-assisted navigation in high tibial osteotomy: a systematic review of the literature. Op Orthop J. 2012; 6:305–312. doi:10.2174/1874325001206010305 [CrossRef]
  47. Akamatsu Y, Mitsugi N, Mochida Y, et al. Navigated opening wedge high tibial osteotomy improves intraoperative correction angle compared with conventional method. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012; 20(3):586–593. doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1616-8 [CrossRef]
  48. McKay SD, MacDermid JC, Roth JH, Richards RS. Assessment of complications of distal radius fractures and development of a complication checklist. J Hand Surg. 2001; 26(5):916–922. doi:10.1053/jhsu.2001.26662 [CrossRef]
  49. Dobbe JGG, Strackee SD, Schreurs W. Computer-assisted planning and navigation for corrective distal radius osteotomy, based on pre- and intraoperative imaging. IEEE Trans Bio Eng. 2011; 58(1):182–190. doi:10.1109/TBME.2010.2084576 [CrossRef]
  50. Croitoru H, Ellis RE, Prihar R, Small CF, Pichora DR. Fixation-based surgery: a new technique for distal radius osteotomy. Comp Aided Surg. 2001; 6(3):160–169. doi:10.3109/10929080109146002 [CrossRef]
  51. O’Brien SJ, Warren RF, Pavlov H, Panariello R, Wickiewicz TL. Reconstruction of the chronically insufficient anterior cruciate ligament with the central third of the patellar ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991; 73(2):278–286.
  52. Endele D, Jung C, Becker U, Bauer G, Mauch F. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with and without computer navigation: a clinical and magnetic resonance imaging evaluation 2 years after surgery. Arthroscopy. 2009; 25(10):1067–1074. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2009.05.016 [CrossRef]
  53. Schep NWL, Stavenuiter MHJ, Diekerhof CH. Intersurgeon variance in computer-assisted planning of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2005; 21(8):942–947. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2005.05.005 [CrossRef]
  54. Nakagawa T, Takeda H, Nakajima K. Intraoperative 3-dimensional imaging-based navigation-assisted anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2008; 24(10):1161–1167. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2008.06.011 [CrossRef]
  55. Picard F, DiGioia AM, Moody J. Accuracy in tunnel placement for ACL reconstruction. Comparison of traditional arthroscopic and computer-assisted navigation techniques. Comp Aided Surg. 2001; 6(5):279–289. doi:10.3109/10929080109146093 [CrossRef]
  56. Cheng T, Zhang GY, Zhang XL. Does computer navigation system really improve early clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Knee. 2012; 19(2):73–77. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2011.02.011 [CrossRef]
  57. Yasuda K, Kondo E, Ichiyama H, Tanabe Y, Tohyama H. Clinical evaluation of anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedure using hamstring tendon grafts: comparisons among 3 different procedures. Arthroscopy. 2006; 22(3):240–251. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2005.12.017 [CrossRef]
  58. Chhabra A, Starman J, Ferretti M, Vidal A, Zantop T, Fu F. Anatomic, radiographic, biomechanical and kinematic evaluation of the anterior cruciate ligament and its two functional bundles. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88(suppl 4):2–10. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00616 [CrossRef]
  59. Tensho K, Kodaira H, Yasuda G, et al. Anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, using CT-based navigation and fiducial markers. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011; 19(3):378–383. doi:10.1007/s00167-010-1217-y [CrossRef]
  60. Robert H. Chondral repair of the knee joint using mosaicplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011; 97(4):418–429. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2011.04.001 [CrossRef]
  61. Emmerson BC, Görtz S, Jamali AA, Chung C, Amiel D, Bugbee WD. Fresh osteochondral allografting in the treatment of osteochondritis dissecans of the femoral condyle. Am J Sports Med. 2007; 35(6):907–914. doi:10.1177/0363546507299932 [CrossRef]
  62. Hangody L, Ráthonyi G, Duska Z. Autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86(suppl 1):65–72.
  63. Koh JL, Kowalski A, Lautenschlager E. The effect of angled osteochondral grafting on contact pressure: a biomechanical study. Am J Sports Med. 2006; 34(1):116–119. doi:10.1177/0363546505281236 [CrossRef]
  64. Koulalis D, Di Benedetto P, Citak M, O’Loughlin P, Pearle AD, Kendoff DO. Comparative study of navigated versus free-hand osteochondral graft transplantation of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 2009; 37(4):803–807. doi:10.1177/0363546508328111 [CrossRef]
  65. Di Benedetto P, Citak M, Kendoff D, et al. Arthroscopic mosaicplasty for osteochondral lesions of the knee: computer-assisted navigation versus freehand technique. Arthroscopy. 2012; 28(9):1290–1296. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2012.02.013 [CrossRef]
  66. Huang FS. Effects of small incongruities in a sheep model of osteochondral autografting. Am J Sports Med. 2004; 32(8):1842–1848. doi:10.1177/0363546504264895 [CrossRef]
  67. Selvan V, Oakley M, Rangan A, Al-Lami M. Optimum configuration of cannulated hip screws for the fixation of intracapsular hip fractures: a biomechanical study. Injury. 2004; 35(2):136–141. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(03)00059-7 [CrossRef]
  68. Gurusamy K, Parker MJ, Rowlands TK. The complications of displaced intracapsular fractures of the hip: the effect of screw positioning and angulation on fracture healing. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87(5):632–634.
  69. Liebergall M, Ben-David D, Weil Y, Peyser A, Mosheiff R. Computerized navigation for the internal fixation of femoral neck fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88(8):1748–1754. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00137 [CrossRef]
  70. Müller MC, Belei P, Pennekamp PH, et al. Three-dimensional computer-assisted navigation for the placement of cannulated hip screws. A pilot study. Int Orthop. 2012; 36(7):1463–1469. doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1496-7 [CrossRef]
  71. Gugenheim JJ, Probe R, Brinker MR. The effects of femoral shaft malrotation on lower extremity anatomy. J Orthop Trauma. 2004; 18(10):658–664. doi:10.1097/00005131-200411000-00002 [CrossRef]
  72. Jaarsma RL, Pakvis DFM, Verdonschot N, Biert J, Van Kampen A. Rotational malalignment after intramedullary nailing of femoral fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2004; 18(7):403–409. doi:10.1097/00005131-200408000-00002 [CrossRef]
  73. Kendoff D, Citak M, Gardner MJ, Gösling T, Krettek C, Hüfner T. Navigated femoral nailing using noninvasive registration of the contralateral intact femur to restore anteversion. Technique and clinical use. J Orthop Trauma. 2007; 21(10):725–730. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e31812f69a9 [CrossRef]
  74. Kahler DM. Navigated long-bone fracture reduction. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(suppl 1):102–107. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01286 [CrossRef]
  75. Suhm N. Intraoperative accuracy evaluation of virtual fluoroscopy—a method for application in computer-assisted distal locking. Comp Aided Surg. 2001; 6(4):221–224.
  76. Kraus MD, Dehner C, Riepl C, Schöll H, Gebhard F. A novel method of image-based navigation in fracture surgery. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012; 132(6):741–750. doi:10.1007/s00402-012-1471-1 [CrossRef]
  77. Norris T. Functional outcome after shoulder arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002; 11(2):130–135. doi:10.1067/mse.2002.121146 [CrossRef]
  78. Nyffeler RW, Sheikh R, Atkinson TS, Jacob HAC, Favre P, Gerber C. Effects of glenoid component version on humeral head displacement and joint reaction forces: an experimental study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006; 15(5):625–629. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.09.016 [CrossRef]
  79. Barrett W, Franklin J, Jackins S, Wyss C, Matsen F. Total shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987; 69(6):865–872.
  80. Kircher J, Wiedemann M, Magosch P, Lichtenberg S, Habermeyer P. Improved accuracy of glenoid positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty with intraoperative navigation: a prospective-randomized clinical study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18(4):515–520. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.03.014 [CrossRef]
  81. Humphrey CS, Kelly JD, Norris TR. Optimizing glenosphere position and fixation in reverse shoulder arthroplasty, part two: the three-column concept. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008; 17(4):595–601. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2008.05.038 [CrossRef]
  82. Verborgt O, De Smedt T, Vanhees M, Clockaerts S, Parizel PM, Van Glabbeek F. Accuracy of placement of the glenoid component in reversed shoulder arthroplasty with and without navigation. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011; 20(1):21–26. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2010.07.014 [CrossRef]
  83. Iannotti JP, Spencer EE, Winter U, Deffenbaugh D, Williams G. Prosthetic positioning in total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005; 14(1 suppl s):111S–121S. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2004.09.026 [CrossRef]
  84. Kedgley AE, DeLude JA, Drosdowech DS, Johnson JA, Bicknell RT. Humeral head translation during glenohumeral abduction following computer-assisted shoulder hemiarthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90(9):1256–1259.
  85. DeLude JA, Bicknell RT, MacKenzie G. An anthropometric study of the bilateral anatomy of the humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007; 16(4):477–483. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2006.09.016 [CrossRef]
  86. Bicknell RT, DeLude JA, Kedgley AE. Early experience with computer-assisted shoulder hemiarthroplasty for fractures of the proximal humerus: development of a novel technique and an in vitro comparison with traditional methods. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007; 16(3 suppl):S117–S125. doi:10.1016/j.jse.2006.08.007 [CrossRef]
  87. Wong AS, Kokkalis ZT, Schmidt CC. Proper insertion angle is essential to prevent intraarticular protrusion of a knotless suture anchor in shoulder rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy. 2010; 26(2):286–290. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2009.05.006 [CrossRef]
  88. Koulalis D, Kendoff D, Citak M, O’Loughlin PF, Pearle AD. Freehand versus navigated glenoid anchor positioning in anterior labral repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011; 19(9):1554–1557. doi:10.1007/s00167-010-1360-5 [CrossRef]
  89. Lavallée S, Sautot P, Troccaz J, Cinquin P, Merloz P. Computer-assisted spine surgery: a technique for accurate transpedicular screw fixation using CT data and a 3-D optical localizer. J Image Guid Surg. 1995; 1(1):65–73. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1522-712X(1995)1:1<65::AID-IGS10>3.0.CO;2-7 [CrossRef]
  90. Kim KD, Babbitz JD, Mimbs J. Imaging-guided costotransversectomy for thoracic disc herniation. Neurosurg Focus. 2000; 9(4):e7. doi:10.3171/foc.2000.9.4.7 [CrossRef]
  91. Gelalis ID, Paschos NK, Pakos EE, et al. Accuracy of pedicle screw placement: a systematic review of prospective in vivo studies comparing free hand, fluoroscopy guidance and navigation techniques. Eur Spine J. 2012; 21(2):247–255. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-2011-3 [CrossRef]
  92. Flynn JM, Sakai DS. Improving safety in spinal deformity surgery: advances in navigation and neurologic monitoring. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22(suppl 2):S131–S137. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2360-6 [CrossRef]
  93. Weidner A, Wähler M, Chiu ST, Ullrich CG. Modification of C1–C2 transarticular screw fixation by image-guided surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(20):2668–2673. doi:10.1097/00007632-200010150-00020 [CrossRef]
  94. Arand M, Hartwig E, Kinzl L, Gebhard F. Spinal navigation in cervical fractures—a preliminary clinical study on Judet-osteosynthesis of the axis. Comp Aided Surg. 2001; 6(3):170–175.
  95. Ludwig SC, Kramer DL, Balderston RA, Vaccaro AR, Foley KF, Albert TJ. Placement of pedicle screws in the human cadaveric cervical spine: comparative accuracy of three techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(13):1655–1667. doi:10.1097/00007632-200007010-00009 [CrossRef]
  96. Ludwig SC, Kowalski JM, Ii CCE, Heller JG. Cervical pedicle screws comparative accuracy of two insertion techniques Group I?: Stealth technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25(20):2675–2681. doi:10.1097/00007632-200010150-00022 [CrossRef]
  97. Rajasekaran S, Vidyadhara S, Ramesh P, Shetty AP. Randomized clinical study to compare the accuracy of navigated and non-navigated thoracic pedicle screws in deformity correction surgeries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32(2):E56–E64. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000252094.64857.ab [CrossRef]
  98. Waschke A, Walter J, Duenisch P, Reichart R, Kalff R, Ewald C. CT-navigation versus fluoroscopy-guided placement of pedicle screws at the thoracolumbar spine: single center experience of 4,500 screws. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22(3):654–660. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2509-3 [CrossRef]
  99. Allam Y, Silbermann J, Riese F, Greiner-Perth R. Computer tomography assessment of pedicle screw placement in thoracic spine: comparison between free hand and a generic 3D-based navigation techniques. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22(3):648–653. doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2505-7 [CrossRef]
  100. Merloz P, Tonetti J, Pittet L, Coulomb M, Lavalleé S, Sautot P. Pedicle screw placement using image guided techniques. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998; (354):39–48. doi:10.1097/00003086-199809000-00006 [CrossRef]
  101. Resnick DK. Prospective comparison of virtual fluoroscopy to fluoroscopy and plain radiographs for placement of lumbar pedicle screws. J Spinal Dis Tech. 2003; 16(3):254–260. doi:10.1097/00024720-200306000-00005 [CrossRef]
  102. Smith HE, Vaccaro AR, Yuan PS, Papadopoulos S, Sasso R. The use of computerized image guidance in lumbar disk arthroplasty. J Spinal Dis Tech. 2006; 19(1):22–27. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000187977.76926.85 [CrossRef]
  103. Villavicencio AT, Burneikiene S, Bulsara KR, Thramann JJ. Utility of computerized isocentric fluoroscopy for minimally invasive spinal surgical techniques. J Spinal Dis Tech. 2005; 18(4):369–375. doi:10.1097/01.bsd.0000168511.67189.64 [CrossRef]
  104. Johnson JP, Stokes JK, Oskouian RJ, Choi WW, King WA. Image-guided thoracoscopic spinal surgery: a merging of 2 technologies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(19):E572–E578. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000180475.20002.15 [CrossRef]
  105. Sasso RC, Best NM, Potts EA. Percutaneous computer-assisted translaminar facet screw: an initial human cadaveric study. Spine J. 2005; 5(5):515–519. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2005.03.016 [CrossRef]
  106. Mavrogenis AF, Coll-Mesa L, Gonzalez-Gaitan M. Criteria and outcome of limb salvage surgery. J BUON. 2011; 16(4):617–626.
  107. Mavrogenis AF, Abati CN, Romagnoli C, Ruggieri P. Similar survival but better function for patients after limb salvage versus amputation for distal tibia osteosarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470(6):1735–1748. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-2238-7 [CrossRef]
  108. Mavrogenis AF, Soultanis K, Patapis P, et al. Pelvic resections. Orthopedics. 2012; 35(2):232–243.
  109. Ruggieri P, Mavrogenis AF, Mercuri M. Quality of life following limb-salvage surgery for bone sarcomas. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011; 11(1):59–73. doi:10.1586/erp.10.91 [CrossRef]
  110. Wong KC, Kumta SM. Joint-preserving tumor resection and reconstruction using image-guided computer navigation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471(3):762–773. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2536-8 [CrossRef]
  111. Fehlberg S, Eulenstein S, Lange T, Andreou D, Tunn P. Computer-assisted pelvic tumor resection: fields of application, limits and perspectives. Treat Bone Soft Tissue Sarc. 2009; 179:169–182. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-77960-5_11 [CrossRef]
  112. Wong KC, Kumta SM, Chiu KH, et al. Computer assisted pelvic tumor resection and reconstruction with a custom-made prosthesis using an innovative adaptation and its validation. Comp Aided Surg. 2007; 12(4):225–232.
  113. Wong KC, Kumta SM, Chiu KH, Antonio GE, Unwin P, Leung KS. Precision tumour resection and reconstruction using image-guided computer navigation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007; 89(7):943–947.
  114. Agarwal M, Puri A, Gulia A, Reddy K. Joint-sparing or physeal-sparing diaphyseal resections: the challenge of holding small fragments. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 468(11):2924–2932. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1458-6 [CrossRef]
  115. Pring ME, Weber KL, Unni KK, Sim FH. Chondrosarcoma of the pelvis. A review of sixty-four cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 83(11):1630–1642.
  116. Hart R, Janecek M, Chaker A, Bucek P. Total knee arthroplasty implanted with and without kinematic navigation. Int Orthop. 2003; 27(6):366–369. doi:10.1007/s00264-003-0501-6 [CrossRef]
  117. Li C-H, Chen T-H, Su Y-P, Shao P-C, Lee K-S, Chen W-M. Periprosthetic femoral supracondylar fracture after total knee arthroplasty with navigation system. J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23(2):304–307. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2006.12.049 [CrossRef]
  118. Gøthesen O, Espehaug B, Havelin L, Petursson G, Furnes O. Short-term outcome of 1,465 computer-navigated primary total knee replacements 2005–2008. Acta Orthop. 2011; 82(3):293–300. doi:10.3109/17453674.2011.575743 [CrossRef]
  119. 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(suppl):90–98.
  120. Mager Stellman J, ed. Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety. Vol II. 4th ed. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization; 1998.

10.3928/01477447-20130724-10

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents