Burkart A, Debski R E, McMahon P J, Rudy T, Fu F H, Musahl V, van Scyoc A, Woo S L
Musculoskeletal Research Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA.
Comput Aided Surg. 2001;6(5):270-8. doi: 10.1002/igs.10013.
The objective of this study was to examine the precision of ACL tunnel placement using: (1) CASPAR (orto MAQUET GmbH Co. KG)--an active robotic system, and (2) four orthopedic surgeons with various levels of experience (between 100 and 3,500 ACL reconstructions). The robotic system and each surgeon drilled tunnels for ACL reconstruction in 10 plastic knees (total n = 50) that included a reference cube in the medial aspect of the proximal tibia and distal femur. For the robotic system, the placement of each tunnel was planned preoperatively using custom software and CT data for each femur and tibia. The robotic system then drilled the tunnels in the femur and tibia based on the preoperative plan. For the surgeons, tunnel placement was accomplished using their preferred technique, which was based on the one-incision arthroscopic technique. The distribution of intra-articular points on the tibia was contained within a sphere of radius 2.0 mm (robot system), 2.1 mm (Fellow 1), 2.4 mm (Fellow 2), 3.4 mm (Experienced Surgeon 1), or 2.0 mm (Experienced Surgeon 2). On the femur, no significant differences in the distribution of intra-articular points could be demonstrated between the robotic system (2.1 mm), Fellow 1 (4.5 mm), Fellow 2 (4.1 mm), Experienced Surgeon 1 (2.3 mm), and Experienced Surgeon 2 (3.0 mm). The direction of the tunnels drilled in the femur and tibia was different with the robotic and traditional techniques. However, the robotic system had the most consistent tunnel directions, while the surgeons' tunnels were more dispersed. Variation in surgeon precision of tunnel placement for ACL reconstruction is greater on the femur than the tibia, and this can be correlated with experience. Our data also suggest that the robotic system has the same precision as the most experienced surgeons.
本研究的目的是使用以下方法检查前交叉韧带(ACL)隧道置入的精度:(1)CASPAR(德国马奎特有限公司)——一种主动机器人系统,以及(2)四名具有不同经验水平(100至3500例ACL重建手术经验)的骨科医生。机器人系统和每位医生在10个塑料膝关节中钻制用于ACL重建的隧道(共50个),这些膝关节在近端胫骨和远端股骨的内侧均包含一个参考立方体。对于机器人系统,每个隧道的置入术前使用定制软件和每个股骨及胫骨的CT数据进行规划。然后,机器人系统根据术前规划在股骨和胫骨上钻制隧道。对于医生,隧道置入采用他们偏好的技术,该技术基于单切口关节镜技术。胫骨上关节内点的分布范围在半径为2.0毫米的球体(机器人系统)、2.1毫米(进修医生1)、2.4毫米(进修医生2)、3.4毫米(经验丰富的外科医生1)或2.0毫米(经验丰富的外科医生2)内。在股骨上,机器人系统(2.1毫米)、进修医生1(4.5毫米)、进修医生2(4.1毫米)、经验丰富的外科医生1(2.3毫米)和经验丰富的外科医生2(3.0毫米)之间关节内点的分布无显著差异。股骨和胫骨上钻制的隧道方向在机器人技术和传统技术之间有所不同。然而,机器人系统的隧道方向最一致,而医生钻制的隧道更分散。ACL重建中医生隧道置入精度的变化在股骨上比在胫骨上更大,且这与经验相关。我们的数据还表明,机器人系统具有与经验最丰富的医生相同的精度。