ПРИМЕНЕНИЕ РОБОТ-АССИСТИРОВАННЫХ МЕТОДОВ ПРИ ПЕРВИЧНОМ ЭНДОПРОТЕЗИРОВАНИИ ТАЗОБЕДРЕННОГО СУСТАВА
Обзорная статья
Дата публикации: июня 7, 2024
Ключевые слова
хирургия
робот
робот
Как цитировать
Дгебуадзе Г., Шумский А. А., Крылов С. В., Орлецкий А. К. ПРИМЕНЕНИЕ РОБОТ-АССИСТИРОВАННЫХ МЕТОДОВ ПРИ ПЕРВИЧНОМ ЭНДОПРОТЕЗИРОВАНИИ ТАЗОБЕДРЕННОГО СУСТАВА // Кремлевская медицина. Клинический вестник. 2024. Т. № 2. С. 88-92.
Аннотация
Роботизированное эндопротезирование суставов рассматривается в настоящее время как перспективное направление развития ортопедии. При этом имеется ряд ограничений к широкому внедрению данной технологии на современном этапе развития медицинской науки и практики. Цель исследования. Проанализировать современное состояние и перспективы развития робот-ассистированных методов, используемых при первичном эндопротезировании тазобедренного сустава на современном этапе, их преимущества и недостатки. Материалы и методы. По ключевым словам был выполнен поиск литературы в электронных базах данных Pubmed, Web of Science, e-Library, Google Scholar. Особое внимание авторами уделялось перспективам использования роботизированных систем в эндопротезировании тазобедренного сустава. Результаты. Определена несомненная перспективность использования робот-ассистированных методов в первичном протезировании тазобедренного сустава. Охарактеризованы основные перспективные направления по развитию исследований и технологий в данной отрасли медицинской науки. Заключение. Использование робот-ассистированных методов при протезировании тазобедренного сустава позволяет сократить время операции, снизить интенсивность и длительность послеоперационной боли, а также улучшить показатели функционального восстановления до начала самостоятельной ходьбы, что способствует раннему послеоперационному клиническому восстановлению. Основная проблема широкого внедрения робот-ассистированных методов при протезировании тазобедренного сустава, в свою очередь, заключается в высокой стоимости и длительности процедуры.Литература
1. Picard F. et al. Computer assisted orthopaedic surgery: past, present and future // Medical engineering & physics. – 2019. – V. 72. – P. 55–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2019.08.005.
2. Radermacher K. et al. Computer-assisted orthopedic surgery // Biomedizinische Technik / Biomedical Engineering. – 2012. – V. 57. – No 4. – P. 207. DOI: 10.1515/bmt-2012-0401.
3. Burger J.A. et al. Mid-term survivorship and patient-reported outcomes of robotic-arm assisted partial knee arthroplasty: A single-surgeon study of 1018 knees // The Bone & Joint Journal. – 2020. – V. 102. – No 1. – P. 108–116.
4. Domb B.G. et al. Minimum 5-year outcomes of ROBOTIC-ASSISTED primary total hip arthroplasty with a nested comparison against manual primary total hip arthroplasty: a propensity score–matched study // JAAOS. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. – 2020. – V. 28. – No 20. – P. 847–856.
5. Шестерня Н.А. и др. Эндопротезирование тазобедренного сустава в сложных случаях // Кафедра травматологии и ортопедии. – 2016. – № 1. – С. 30–35. [Shesternya N.A. et al. Hip replacement in complex cases // Department of Traumatology and Orthopedics (Kafedra travmatologii i ortopedii). – 2016. – No 1. – P. 30–35. In Russian].
6. Fu J. et al. Robot-assisted joint arthroplasty-An emerging technology of the present and the future // Zhongguo Xiufu Chongjian Waike Zazhi (Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery). – 2021. – V. 35. – No 10. – P. 1217–1220. DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.202106086.
7. Jahng K.H. et al. Minimally invasive surgery in orthopedics. – Springer, 2015. – P. 1–15.
8. Nakamura N. et al. Does robotic milling for stem implantation in cementless THA result in improved outcomes scores or survivorship compared with hand rasping? Results of a randomized trial at 10 years // Clinical orthopaedics and related research. – 2018. – V. 476. – No 11. – P. 2169. DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000467.
9. Negrín R. et al. Robotic-assisted surgery in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does it improve the precision of the surgery and its clinical outcomes? Systematic review // Journal of Robotic Surgery. – 2021. – V. 15. – No 2. – P. 165–177.
10. Parsley B.S. Robotics in orthopedics: a brave new world // The Journal of arthroplasty. – 2018. – V. 33. – No 8. – P. 2355–2357. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.032.
11. Beyaz S. A brief history of artificial intelligence and robotic surgery in orthopedics & traumatology and future expectations // Joint Diseases and Related Surgery. – 2020. – V. 31. – No 3. – P. 653. DOI: 10.5606/ehc.2020.75300.
12. Moschetti W.E. et al. Can robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty be cost-effective? A Markov decision analysis // The Journal of Arthroplasty. – 2016. – V. 31. – No 4. – P. 759–765. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.10.018.
13. Пиманчев О.В. и др. Эндопротезирование тазобедренного сустава с использованием роботизированной системы // Вестник Национального медико-хирургического центра им. Н.И. Пирогова. – 2022. – Т. 17. – № 2. – С. 125–128. [Pimanchev O.V. et al. Hip replacement using a robotic system // Bulletin of the National Medical and Surgical Center named after N.I. Pirogov. – 2022. – V. 17 – No 2. – P. 125–128. In Russian]. DOI: 10.25881/20728255_2022_17_2_125.
14. Vermue H. et al. Can robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty be a cost-effective procedure? A Markov decision analysis // The Knee. – 2021. – V. 29. – P. 345–352. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2021.02.004.
15. Zhu B. et al. Combined anteversion technique in total hip arthroplasty for Crowe IV developmental dysplasia of the hip // Hip International. – 2017. – V. 27. – No 6. – P. 589–594.
16. Рукин Я.А. и др. Ранние результаты эндопротезирования тазобедренного сустава с применением индивидуальных аугментов при диспластическом коксартрозе // Травматология и ортопедия России. – 2020. – Т. 26. – № 2. – С. 50–59. [Rukin Ya.A. et al. Early results of hip arthroplasty using individual augments for dysplastic coxarthrosis // Traumatology and orthopedics in Russia (Travmatologiya i ortopediya Rossii). – 2020. – V. 26. No 2. – P. 50–59. In Russian].
17. Hepinstall M. et al. Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty in patients who have developmental hip dysplasia // Surgical Technology International. – 2021. – V. 39. – P. 338–347. DOI: 10.52198/21.STI.39.OS1454.
18. Vigdorchik J.M. et al. The use of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty in developmental dysplasia of the hip // Arthroplasty Today. – 2020. – V. 6. – No 4. – P. 770–776. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2020.07.022.
19. Wang L. et al. Does preoperative rehabilitation for patients planning to undergo joint replacement surgery improve outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials // BMJ Open. – 2016. – V. 6. – No 2. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009857.
20. Bendich I. et al. Robotic assistance for posterior approach total hip arthroplasty is associated with lower risk of revision for dislocation when compared to manual techniques // The Journal of Arthroplasty. – 2022. – V. 37. – No 6. – P. 1124–1129. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.01.085.
21. Cozzi Lepri A. et al. Precision and accuracy of robot‐assisted technology with simplified express femoral workflow in measuring leg length and offset in total hip arthroplasty. – 2020. – V. 16. – No. 5. – P. 1–6. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2141.
22. Jacofsky D.J. et al. Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review // The Journal of Arthroplasty. – 2016. – V. 31. – No 10. – P. 2353–2363. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.026.
23. Batailler C. et al. Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty // Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. – 2019. – V. 27. – P. 1232–1240. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-018-5081-5.
24. Agarwal N. et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis // The Journal of Arthroplasty. – 2020. – V. 35. – No 11. – P. 3393–3409. e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.03.005.
25. Haniball J. et al. Robotic-assisted acetabular cup placement in severe intrapelvic acetabular protrusio: a case report // JBJS Case Connector. – 2020. – V. 10. – No 4. – P. e20. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.CC.20.00026.
26. Manning W. et al. Improved mediolateral load distribution without adverse laxity pattern in robot-assisted knee arthroplasty compared to a standard manual measured resection technique // Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. – 2020. – V. 28. – P. 2835–2845. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-019-05631-y.
27. Nodzo S.R. et al. Intraoperative placement of total hip arthroplasty components with robotic-arm assisted technology correlates with postoperative implant position: a CT-based study //The Bone & Joint Journal. – 2018. – V. 100. – No 10. – P. 1303–1309. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B10-BJJ-2018-0201.R1.
28. Nd I.R.L. et al. Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty: outcomes at minimum two-year follow-up //Surgical Technology International. – 2017. – V. 30. – P. 365–372.
29. Domb B.G. et al. Accuracy of component positioning in 1980 total hip arthroplasties: a comparative analysis by surgical technique and mode of guidance // The Journal of Arthroplasty. – 2015. – V. 30. – No 12. – P. 2208–2218. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.059.
30. Nawabi D.H. et al. Haptically guided robotic technology in total hip arthroplasty: a cadaveric investigation // Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, part H. // Journal of Engineering in Medicine. – 2013. – V. 227. – No 3. – P. 302–309. DOI: 10.1177/0954411912468540.
31. Damle A. et al. Diffusion of technology: Trends in robotic-assisted colorectal surgery // The American Journal of Surgery. – 2017. – V. 214. – No 5. – P. 820–824.
32. Kayani B. et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the systemic inflammatory response in conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty versus robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty // The Bone & Joint Journal. – 2021. – V. 103. – No 1. – P. 113–122. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B1.BJJ-2020-0602.R2.
33. Shaw J.H. et al. Minimal clinically important difference in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty versus standard manual total knee arthroplasty // The Journal of Arthroplasty. – 2021. – V. 36. – No 7. – P. S233–S241.
34. St Mart J.P. et al. The three-year survivorship of robotically assisted versus non-robotically assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry // The Bone & Joint Journal. – 2020. – V. 102. – No 3. – P. 319–328. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B3.BJJ-2019-0713.R1.
35. Redmond J.M. et al. The learning curve associated with robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty // The Journal of arthroplasty. – 2015. – V. 30. – No 1. – P. 50–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.08.003.
36. Kong X. et al. A retrospective study comparing a single surgeon's experience on manual versus robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty after the learning curve of the latter procedure–a cohort study // International Journal of Surgery. – 2020. – V. 77. – P. 174–180. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.03.067.
37. Kayani B. et al. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty has a learning curve of seven cases for integration into the surgical workflow but no learning curve effect for accuracy of implant positioning // Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. – 2019. – V. 27. – P. 1132–1141. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-018-5138-5.
38. Kayani B. et al. The learning curve of robotic-arm assisted acetabular cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty // Hip International. – 2021. – V. 31. – No 3. – P. 311–319. DOI: 10.1177/1120700019889334.
39. Perets I. et al. Current topics in robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty: a review //Hip International. – 2020. – V. 30. – No 2. – P. 118–124. DOI: 10.1177/1120700019893636.
40. Perets I. et al. Robot‐assisted total hip arthroplasty: clinical outcomes and complication rate // The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. – 2018. – V. 14. – No 4. – P. e1912. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1912.
41. Langer S. et al. Importance of hip-spine syndrome in hip arthroplasty: influence on the outcome and therapeutic consequences // Zeitschrift für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie. – 2023. – V. 161. – No 2. – P. 168–174. DOI: 10.1055/a-1527-7697.
42. Cook R. et al. A traditional hip implant is as effective as newer types for people over 65 // BMJ: British Medical Journal (Online). – 2019. – V. 366. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4230.
43. Chai W. et al. Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty for arthrodesed hips // Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management. – 2020. – P. 357–368. DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S246565.
44. Крылов С.В. и др. Использование блокады мышцы, выпрямляющей позвоночник, при операции тотального эндопротезирования тазобедренного сустава: клинический случай // Кремлевская медицина. Клинический вестник. – 2021. – № 1. – С. 116–119 [Krylov S.V. et al. The use of a blockade of the erector spinae muscle during total hip arthroplasty: a clinical case // Kremlin Medicine. Klinicheskiy vestnik. – 2021. – No 1. – P. 116–119. In Russian]. DOI:10.26269/kmdx-9z40.
45. Tian H. Robotic assisted artificial hip and knee arthroplasty is an inevitable trend in the future // Zhonghua yi xue za zhi. – 2022. – V. 102. – No 1. – P. 4–8. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20210730-01692.
46. Keating T.C. et al. Augmented reality in orthopedic practice and education // Orthopedic Clinics. – 2021. – V. 52. – No 1. – P. 15–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.ocl.2020.08.002.
2. Radermacher K. et al. Computer-assisted orthopedic surgery // Biomedizinische Technik / Biomedical Engineering. – 2012. – V. 57. – No 4. – P. 207. DOI: 10.1515/bmt-2012-0401.
3. Burger J.A. et al. Mid-term survivorship and patient-reported outcomes of robotic-arm assisted partial knee arthroplasty: A single-surgeon study of 1018 knees // The Bone & Joint Journal. – 2020. – V. 102. – No 1. – P. 108–116.
4. Domb B.G. et al. Minimum 5-year outcomes of ROBOTIC-ASSISTED primary total hip arthroplasty with a nested comparison against manual primary total hip arthroplasty: a propensity score–matched study // JAAOS. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. – 2020. – V. 28. – No 20. – P. 847–856.
5. Шестерня Н.А. и др. Эндопротезирование тазобедренного сустава в сложных случаях // Кафедра травматологии и ортопедии. – 2016. – № 1. – С. 30–35. [Shesternya N.A. et al. Hip replacement in complex cases // Department of Traumatology and Orthopedics (Kafedra travmatologii i ortopedii). – 2016. – No 1. – P. 30–35. In Russian].
6. Fu J. et al. Robot-assisted joint arthroplasty-An emerging technology of the present and the future // Zhongguo Xiufu Chongjian Waike Zazhi (Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery). – 2021. – V. 35. – No 10. – P. 1217–1220. DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.202106086.
7. Jahng K.H. et al. Minimally invasive surgery in orthopedics. – Springer, 2015. – P. 1–15.
8. Nakamura N. et al. Does robotic milling for stem implantation in cementless THA result in improved outcomes scores or survivorship compared with hand rasping? Results of a randomized trial at 10 years // Clinical orthopaedics and related research. – 2018. – V. 476. – No 11. – P. 2169. DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000467.
9. Negrín R. et al. Robotic-assisted surgery in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does it improve the precision of the surgery and its clinical outcomes? Systematic review // Journal of Robotic Surgery. – 2021. – V. 15. – No 2. – P. 165–177.
10. Parsley B.S. Robotics in orthopedics: a brave new world // The Journal of arthroplasty. – 2018. – V. 33. – No 8. – P. 2355–2357. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.032.
11. Beyaz S. A brief history of artificial intelligence and robotic surgery in orthopedics & traumatology and future expectations // Joint Diseases and Related Surgery. – 2020. – V. 31. – No 3. – P. 653. DOI: 10.5606/ehc.2020.75300.
12. Moschetti W.E. et al. Can robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty be cost-effective? A Markov decision analysis // The Journal of Arthroplasty. – 2016. – V. 31. – No 4. – P. 759–765. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.10.018.
13. Пиманчев О.В. и др. Эндопротезирование тазобедренного сустава с использованием роботизированной системы // Вестник Национального медико-хирургического центра им. Н.И. Пирогова. – 2022. – Т. 17. – № 2. – С. 125–128. [Pimanchev O.V. et al. Hip replacement using a robotic system // Bulletin of the National Medical and Surgical Center named after N.I. Pirogov. – 2022. – V. 17 – No 2. – P. 125–128. In Russian]. DOI: 10.25881/20728255_2022_17_2_125.
14. Vermue H. et al. Can robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty be a cost-effective procedure? A Markov decision analysis // The Knee. – 2021. – V. 29. – P. 345–352. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2021.02.004.
15. Zhu B. et al. Combined anteversion technique in total hip arthroplasty for Crowe IV developmental dysplasia of the hip // Hip International. – 2017. – V. 27. – No 6. – P. 589–594.
16. Рукин Я.А. и др. Ранние результаты эндопротезирования тазобедренного сустава с применением индивидуальных аугментов при диспластическом коксартрозе // Травматология и ортопедия России. – 2020. – Т. 26. – № 2. – С. 50–59. [Rukin Ya.A. et al. Early results of hip arthroplasty using individual augments for dysplastic coxarthrosis // Traumatology and orthopedics in Russia (Travmatologiya i ortopediya Rossii). – 2020. – V. 26. No 2. – P. 50–59. In Russian].
17. Hepinstall M. et al. Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty in patients who have developmental hip dysplasia // Surgical Technology International. – 2021. – V. 39. – P. 338–347. DOI: 10.52198/21.STI.39.OS1454.
18. Vigdorchik J.M. et al. The use of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty in developmental dysplasia of the hip // Arthroplasty Today. – 2020. – V. 6. – No 4. – P. 770–776. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2020.07.022.
19. Wang L. et al. Does preoperative rehabilitation for patients planning to undergo joint replacement surgery improve outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials // BMJ Open. – 2016. – V. 6. – No 2. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009857.
20. Bendich I. et al. Robotic assistance for posterior approach total hip arthroplasty is associated with lower risk of revision for dislocation when compared to manual techniques // The Journal of Arthroplasty. – 2022. – V. 37. – No 6. – P. 1124–1129. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.01.085.
21. Cozzi Lepri A. et al. Precision and accuracy of robot‐assisted technology with simplified express femoral workflow in measuring leg length and offset in total hip arthroplasty. – 2020. – V. 16. – No. 5. – P. 1–6. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2141.
22. Jacofsky D.J. et al. Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review // The Journal of Arthroplasty. – 2016. – V. 31. – No 10. – P. 2353–2363. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.026.
23. Batailler C. et al. Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty // Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. – 2019. – V. 27. – P. 1232–1240. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-018-5081-5.
24. Agarwal N. et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis // The Journal of Arthroplasty. – 2020. – V. 35. – No 11. – P. 3393–3409. e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.03.005.
25. Haniball J. et al. Robotic-assisted acetabular cup placement in severe intrapelvic acetabular protrusio: a case report // JBJS Case Connector. – 2020. – V. 10. – No 4. – P. e20. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.CC.20.00026.
26. Manning W. et al. Improved mediolateral load distribution without adverse laxity pattern in robot-assisted knee arthroplasty compared to a standard manual measured resection technique // Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. – 2020. – V. 28. – P. 2835–2845. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-019-05631-y.
27. Nodzo S.R. et al. Intraoperative placement of total hip arthroplasty components with robotic-arm assisted technology correlates with postoperative implant position: a CT-based study //The Bone & Joint Journal. – 2018. – V. 100. – No 10. – P. 1303–1309. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B10-BJJ-2018-0201.R1.
28. Nd I.R.L. et al. Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty: outcomes at minimum two-year follow-up //Surgical Technology International. – 2017. – V. 30. – P. 365–372.
29. Domb B.G. et al. Accuracy of component positioning in 1980 total hip arthroplasties: a comparative analysis by surgical technique and mode of guidance // The Journal of Arthroplasty. – 2015. – V. 30. – No 12. – P. 2208–2218. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.059.
30. Nawabi D.H. et al. Haptically guided robotic technology in total hip arthroplasty: a cadaveric investigation // Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, part H. // Journal of Engineering in Medicine. – 2013. – V. 227. – No 3. – P. 302–309. DOI: 10.1177/0954411912468540.
31. Damle A. et al. Diffusion of technology: Trends in robotic-assisted colorectal surgery // The American Journal of Surgery. – 2017. – V. 214. – No 5. – P. 820–824.
32. Kayani B. et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the systemic inflammatory response in conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty versus robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty // The Bone & Joint Journal. – 2021. – V. 103. – No 1. – P. 113–122. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B1.BJJ-2020-0602.R2.
33. Shaw J.H. et al. Minimal clinically important difference in robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty versus standard manual total knee arthroplasty // The Journal of Arthroplasty. – 2021. – V. 36. – No 7. – P. S233–S241.
34. St Mart J.P. et al. The three-year survivorship of robotically assisted versus non-robotically assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry // The Bone & Joint Journal. – 2020. – V. 102. – No 3. – P. 319–328. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B3.BJJ-2019-0713.R1.
35. Redmond J.M. et al. The learning curve associated with robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty // The Journal of arthroplasty. – 2015. – V. 30. – No 1. – P. 50–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.08.003.
36. Kong X. et al. A retrospective study comparing a single surgeon's experience on manual versus robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty after the learning curve of the latter procedure–a cohort study // International Journal of Surgery. – 2020. – V. 77. – P. 174–180. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.03.067.
37. Kayani B. et al. Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty has a learning curve of seven cases for integration into the surgical workflow but no learning curve effect for accuracy of implant positioning // Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. – 2019. – V. 27. – P. 1132–1141. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-018-5138-5.
38. Kayani B. et al. The learning curve of robotic-arm assisted acetabular cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty // Hip International. – 2021. – V. 31. – No 3. – P. 311–319. DOI: 10.1177/1120700019889334.
39. Perets I. et al. Current topics in robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty: a review //Hip International. – 2020. – V. 30. – No 2. – P. 118–124. DOI: 10.1177/1120700019893636.
40. Perets I. et al. Robot‐assisted total hip arthroplasty: clinical outcomes and complication rate // The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. – 2018. – V. 14. – No 4. – P. e1912. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1912.
41. Langer S. et al. Importance of hip-spine syndrome in hip arthroplasty: influence on the outcome and therapeutic consequences // Zeitschrift für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie. – 2023. – V. 161. – No 2. – P. 168–174. DOI: 10.1055/a-1527-7697.
42. Cook R. et al. A traditional hip implant is as effective as newer types for people over 65 // BMJ: British Medical Journal (Online). – 2019. – V. 366. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4230.
43. Chai W. et al. Robot-assisted total hip arthroplasty for arthrodesed hips // Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management. – 2020. – P. 357–368. DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S246565.
44. Крылов С.В. и др. Использование блокады мышцы, выпрямляющей позвоночник, при операции тотального эндопротезирования тазобедренного сустава: клинический случай // Кремлевская медицина. Клинический вестник. – 2021. – № 1. – С. 116–119 [Krylov S.V. et al. The use of a blockade of the erector spinae muscle during total hip arthroplasty: a clinical case // Kremlin Medicine. Klinicheskiy vestnik. – 2021. – No 1. – P. 116–119. In Russian]. DOI:10.26269/kmdx-9z40.
45. Tian H. Robotic assisted artificial hip and knee arthroplasty is an inevitable trend in the future // Zhonghua yi xue za zhi. – 2022. – V. 102. – No 1. – P. 4–8. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20210730-01692.
46. Keating T.C. et al. Augmented reality in orthopedic practice and education // Orthopedic Clinics. – 2021. – V. 52. – No 1. – P. 15–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.ocl.2020.08.002.