NAVIO® Robotics-Assisted Partial Knee Replacement
The Process Starts by Planning the Procedure with Your Unique Knee Anatomy in Mind.
Rather than a radiation-intensive CT-scan, the NAVIO system uses a bone surface mapping technique to collect information about your knee. The information collected is used to generate a 3D model, which your surgeon will use to virtually position the metal and plastic implant components that will replace your damaged knee. This is done prior to bone resurfacing so the surgeon can be sure the plan is right for you.
Once your surgery plan is finalized, your surgeon will use a robotics-assisted surgical tool (the NAVIO handpiece) to accurately remove the damaged surface of your knee. To complete the procedure, the implant components are positioned and the surgeon receives computer confirmation that your surgery was performed according to the plan.
Partial Knee Replacement with Traditional Techniques
Using traditional surgical methods, bone cutting guides are placed on the thigh bone (femur) and shin bone (tibia) to help direct a surgical saw in removing the diseased bone and cartilage. This method has been considered technically challenging, as accurately placing these guides can be difficult. Recently, advanced surgical techniques using robotic assistance like the NAVIO system have been developed to provide a higher level of precision and consistency.1
As with any surgical procedure there are risks involved with partial knee replacement which may include, but are not limited to:
- Blood clots. Your physician may prescribe medication to help prevent blood clots
- Infection. Antibiotics may be given before the surgery and continued afterward to help prevent infection
- Injury to nerves or vessels. While rare, nerve and blood vessel damage may occur during the procedure10
- Other risks. Individual patient risks should be discussed with your surgeon
- Consult with your physician for details to determine if a NAVIO robotics assisted procedure is right for you
- Lonner, Jess, Moretti, Vince, “The Evolution of Image-Free Robotic Assistance in Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.”, The American Journal of Orthopedics, May/June 2016, 249-254. Accessed June 7, 2016
- Collier, Matthew, et al., “Patient, Implant, and Alignment Factors Associated With Revision of Medial Compartment Unicondylar Arthroplasty.”, Jour of Arthro, Vol 21 No 6, Suppl. 2, 2006.
- Hernigou, Ph, Deschamps, G., “Alignment Influences Wear in the Knee After Medial Unicompartmental Arthroplasty.”, Clin Orthop Relat Res., Volume 423, June 2004, pp 161-165
- Scott CE, Howie CR, MacDonald D, Biant LC, “Predicting Dissatisfaction Following Total Knee Replacement” J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Sep;92(9):
- Berger RA, Meneghini RM, Jacobs JJ, et al. Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(5):999-1006
- Brown, NM, et al., “Total Knee Arthroplasty has Higher Postoperative Morbidity than Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Analysis,” The Journal of Arthroplasty, 2012
- Hall et al., “Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (Alias Uni-Knee): An Overview With Nursing Implications,” Orthopaedic Nursing, 2004; 23(3): 163-171
- Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991 Dec;(273):151–156
- Repicci, JA, et al., “Minimally invasive surgical technique for unicondylar knee arthroplasty,” J South Orthopedic Association, 1999 Spring; 8(1): 20-7.
- Arthritis of The Knee, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/topic.cfm?topic=a00212, Accessed 9.5.16