Active Robotics

Unique Advantages

Clinical Results

Active Robotics*

95% implant-bone interface contact4
0/75 intraoperative femoral fractures3
0-12 mm leg length variance3

Conventional

21% implant-bone interface contact4
5/71 intraoperative femoral fractures3
0-29 mm leg length variance3

References

* TSolution One® Core Technology
1 Engh, C.A., Bobyn, J.D., & Glassman, A.H. (1987) Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 69(1), 45-55.
2 Hanaouchi, T., Sugano, N., Nishi, T., Nakamura, N., Miki, H., Kakimoto, A., Koshikawa, H. (2007) Effect of robotic milling on periprosthetic bone remodeling. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 25(8), 1062-1069.
3 Nakamura, N., Sugano, N., Nishii, T., Kakimoto, A., & Miki, H. (2010) A comparison between robotic-assisted and manual implantation of cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 486, 1072-1081.
4 Paul, H., Bargar, W., Mittlestadt, B., Musits, B., Taylor, R., Kazanzides, P., Hanson, W. (1992) Development of a Surgical Robot for Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 25, 57-66.