A U G U S T 2 0 1 6 O U T P A T I E N TS U R G E R Y. N E T 2 9
improvement over joint replacement performed with standard instrumentation.
Clinical benefits
Most surgeons who perform partial knee replacements with conventional instru-
mentation find that it's a more demanding procedure than total knee arthroplas-
ty and that it's more difficult to align the implant components in order to
achieve reproducible and predictable outcomes. I'm no different. When I
attempted the uni knees in the past, using manual instruments, the procedures
would take longer than my total knee cases and, even after spending that addi-
tional time, post-op joint alignment and stability were not always satisfactory.
Robotic assistance has eliminated those concerns for me and countless other
surgeons. We're also able to preserve more soft tissue, thanks to the use of a
precise tool and pre-op planning that eliminates the placement of external cut-
ting blocks and jigs on the bones in the knee.
After exposing the knee joint, surgeons might spend a few extra minutes
reviewing the pre-op plan, placing the arrays and registering their locations into
the platform's system, but then the robotic burr is primed to resurface the joint
in a matter of minutes. Procedures therefore ultimately become faster. In fact,
robotics reduces the overall operative times of my unicompartmental knee
replacements by 15 to 20 minutes.
It's somewhat of a leap of faith to trust that the robotic burr is shaving off bone
precisely where it's programmed to work. Surgeons watch the robotic burr very
closely during the first few times they turn the procedure over to it, but they
quickly see that the haptic boundaries let the burr resurface the bone only where
it's supposed to, so the implant can be positioned only where the surgeon intends
it to be based on the planning.
Demand skyrockets
Robotics won't improve the performance of bad surgeons, but the technology will
