Top

International Orthopaedics

Published in:

01-11-2017 | Original Paper

Computer aided planning of orthopaedic surgeries: the definition of generic planning steps for bone removal procedures

Authors: David Putzer, Jose Luis Moctezuma, Michael Nogler

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 11/2017

Abstract

Purpose

An increasing number of orthopaedic surgeons are using computer aided planning tools for bone removal applications. The aim of the study was to consolidate a set of generic functions to be used for a 3D computer assisted planning or simulation.

Methods

A limited subset of 30 surgical procedures was analyzed and verified in 243 surgical procedures of a surgical atlas. Fourteen generic functions to be used in 3D computer assisted planning and simulations were extracted.

Results

Our results showed that the average procedure comprises 14 ± 10 (SD) steps with ten different generic planning steps and four generic bone removal steps.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the study shows that with a limited number of 14 planning functions it is possible to perform 243 surgical procedures out of Campbell’s Operative Orthopedics atlas. The results may be used as a basis for versatile generic intraoperative planning software.

Lundstrom C, Rydell T, Forsell C, Persson A, Ynnerman A (2011) Multi-touch table system for medical visualization: application to orthopedic surgery planning. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 17(12):1775–1784. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2011.224 CrossRefPubMed

Fadero PE, Shah M (2014) Three dimensional (3D) modelling and surgical planning in trauma and orthopaedics. Surgeon 12(6):328–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2014.03.008 CrossRefPubMed

Hara S, Mitsugi M, Kanno T, Nomachi A, Wajima T, Tatemoto Y (2013) Three-dimensional virtual operations can facilitate complicated surgical planning for the treatment of patients with jaw deformities associated with facial asymmetry: a case report. Int J Oral Sci 5(3):176–182. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijos.2013.48 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hassani H, Cherix S, Ek ET, Rudiger HA (2014) Comparisons of preoperative three-dimensional planning and surgical reconstruction in primary cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 29(6):1273–1277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.12.033 CrossRef

Hirao M, Ikemoto S, Tsuboi H, Akita S, Ohshima S, Saeki Y, Yoshikawa H, Sugamoto K, Murase T, Hashimoto J (2014) Computer assisted planning and custom-made surgical guide for malunited pronation deformity after first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis in rheumatoid arthritis: a case report. Comput Aided Surg 19(1-3):13–19. https://doi.org/10.3109/10929088.2014.885992 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lee SW, Shinohara H, Matsuki M, Okuda J, Nomura E, Mabuchi H, Nishiguchi K, Takaori K, Narabayashi I, Tanigawa N (2003) Preoperative simulation of vascular anatomy by three-dimensional computed tomography imaging in laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery. J Am Coll Surg 197(6):927–936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2003.07.021 CrossRefPubMed

Hu Y, Malthaner RA (2007) The feasibility of three-dimensional displays of the thorax for preoperative planning in the surgical treatment of lung cancer. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 31(3):506–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2006.11.054 CrossRefPubMed

Shiozawa M, Sata N, Endo K, Koizumi M, Yasuda Y, Nagai H, Takakusaki H (2009) Preoperative virtual simulation of adrenal tumors. Abdom Imaging 34(1):113–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-008-9364-z CrossRefPubMed

Handels H, Ehrhardt J, Plotz W, Poppl SJ (2000) Virtual planning of hip operations and individual adaption of endoprostheses in orthopaedic surgery. Int J Med Inform 58-59:21–28CrossRefPubMed

10.

Ribeiro CH, Severino NR, Fucs PM (2013) Preoperative surgical planning versus navigation system in valgus tibial osteotomy: a cross-sectional study. Int Orthop 37(8):1483–1486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1960-z CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Cartiaux O, Paul L, Francq BG, Banse X, Docquier PL (2014) Improved accuracy with 3D planning and patient-specific instruments during simulated pelvic bone tumor surgery. Ann Biomed Eng 42(1):205–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-013-0890-7 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Cartiaux O, Docquier PL, Paul L, Francq BG, Cornu OH, Delloye C, Raucent B, Dehez B, Banse X (2008) Surgical inaccuracy of tumor resection and reconstruction within the pelvis: an experimental study. Acta Orthop 79(5):695–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670810016731 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Bellanova L, Paul L, Docquier PL (2013) Surgical guides (patient-specific instruments) for pediatric tibial bone sarcoma resection and allograft reconstruction. Sarcoma 2013:787653. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/787653 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Scholes C, Sahni V, Lustig S, Parker DA, Coolican MR (2014) Patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty does not match the pre-operative plan as assessed by intra-operative computer-assisted navigation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(3):660–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2670-1 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Pietsch M, Djahani O, Hochegger M, Plattner F, Hofmann S (2013) Patient-specific total knee arthroplasty: the importance of planning by the surgeon. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol 21(10):2220–2226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2624-7 CrossRef

16.

Canale ST (2003) Campbell's operative orthopaedics, vol 4, 10th edn. Mosby, St. Louis, MO, USA

17.

Canale ST (2003) Campbell's operative orthopaedics, vol 2, 10th edn. Mosby, St. Louis, MO, USA

18.

Canale ST (2003) Campbell's operative orthopaedics, vol 3, 10th edn. Mosby, St. Louis, MO, USA

19.

Canale ST (2003) Campbell's operative orthopaedics, vol 1, 10th edn. Mosby, St. Louis, MO, USA

20.

Chin PL, Yang KY, Yeo SJ, Lo NN (2005) Randomized control trial comparing radiographic total knee Arthroplasty implant placement using computer navigation versus conventional technique. J Arthroplast 20(5):618–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2005.04.004 CrossRef

21.

Manzotti A, Cerveri P, De Momi E, Pullen C, Confalonieri N (2011) Does computer-assisted surgery benefit leg length restoration in total hip replacement? Navigation versus conventional freehand. Int Orthop 35(1):19–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0903-1 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Baier C, Wolfsteiner J, Otto F, Zeman F, Renkawitz T, Springorum HR, Maderbacher G, Grifka J (2017) Clinical, radiological and survivorship results after ten years comparing navigated and conventional total knee arthroplasty: a matched-pair analysis. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3509-z

23.

Molfetta L, Caldo D (2008) Computer navigation versus conventional implantation for varus knee total arthroplasty: a case-control study at 5 years follow-up. Knee 15(2):75–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2007.12.006 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Synder M, Altimimi MA, Borowski A, Sibinski M, Drobniewski M (2016) Evaluation of outcomes of total knee replacement with and without a navigation system. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 18(3):251–261. https://doi.org/10.5604/15093492.1212869 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Weng Y-J, Hsu RW-W, Hsu W-H (2009) Comparison of computer-assisted navigation and conventional instrumentation for bilateral total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 24(5):668–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.03.006 CrossRef

Title: Computer aided planning of orthopaedic surgeries: the definition of generic planning steps for bone removal procedures
Authors: David Putzer
Jose Luis Moctezuma
Michael Nogler
Publication date: 01-11-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: International Orthopaedics / Issue 11/2017
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3626-8

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Computer aided planning of orthopaedic surgeries: the definition of generic planning steps for bone removal procedures

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2017

A systematic review of the clinical applications and complications of bone marrow aspirate concentrate in management of bone defects and nonunions

Mortality and cardiorespiratory complications in trochanteric femoral fractures: a ten year retrospective analysis

Three dimensional printing technology and materials for treatment of elbow fractures

Tissue engineering-relevant characteristics of ex vivo and monolayer-expanded chondrocytes from the notch versus trochlea of human knee joints

Erratum to: Surgical considerations with the operative fixation of unstable paediatric pelvic ring injuries

Transitioning to the direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. Is it a true muscle sparing approach when performed by a low volume hip replacement surgeon?