References

  1. Data on File.
  2. Millennium Research Group 2013 report
  3. Maloney, William, Keeney, James. Leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty. J Arhtroplasty. 2004 Jun; 19(4 Suppl 1):108-10.
  4. Mirza S, Dunlop D G, Panesar S, Syed G N, Shafat G, Saif S. Basic Science Considerations in Primary Total Hip Replacement Arthroplasty. The Open Orthopaedics Journal. 2010;4, 169-180
  5. 2014 Australian Joint Replacement Registry. Pg. 75
  6. Arthroplasty of the Hip: Leg Length is not Important. White, T; Dougall, T. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 2002 April; 84-B (3) 335-338.
  7. Callanan MC, et al. The John Charnley Award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. CORR 2011;469(2):319
  8. Nawabi DH; Conditt MA; Ranawat AS; Dunbar NJ; Jones, J; Banks S, Padgett DE. Haptically guided robotic technology in total hip arthroplasty – A cadaveric investigation. Journal of Engineering in Medicine. December 2012;227(3):302-309.
  9. Dounchis J, Elson L, Bragdon C, Padgett DE, Marchand R, Illgen R, Malchau H. A Multicenter Evaluation of Acetabular Cup Positioning in Robotic-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty. 43rd Annual Course: Advances in Arthroplasty, October 22-25, 2013, Boston, MA
  10. Domb BG, El Bitar YF, Sadik BS, Stake CE, Botser IB. Comparison of Robotic-assisted and Conventional Acetabular Cup Placement in THA: A Matched-Pair Controlled Study., Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 Jan;472(1):329-36
  11. Domb BG, et al,. Does Robotic-Assisted Computer-Navigation Affect Acetabular Cup Positioning in Total Hip Arthroplasty in the Obese Patient? A Comparison Study. 14th Annual CAOS Meeting, June18-21, 2014, Milan, IT.
  12. Domb BG, et al,. The Learning Curve Associated with Robotic-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty14th Annual CAOS Meeting, June18-21, 2014, Milan, IT.
  13. Illgen R. Robotic Arm Assisted THA Improved Accuracy, Reproducibility, and Outcomes Compared to Conventional Technique. 43rd Annual Course: Advances in Arthroplasty, October 22-25, 2013, Boston, MA.
  14. Jerabek SA, Matt Thompson, Carroll KM, Mayman DJ, Padgett DE. Accuracy of Cup Positioning, COR Restoration and Achieving Desired Hip Length and Offset with Robotic Total Hip Arthroplasty.
  15. Efficient and Accurate Hip Length and Combined Offset with the MAKOplasty THA Femoral Express Workflow, Thompson, M., March 2014.
  16. Goldstein and Springer. Why revision THA fails. ICJR 2014.
  17. Ulrich, et al. Total hip arthroplasties: What are the reasons for revision? Int Orthop. 2008 Oct; 32(5): 597–604
  18. Elson L, Dounchis J, Illgen R, Marchand R, et al. Precision of acetabular cup placement in robotic integrated total hip arthoplasty. Hip Int 2015; 25(6):531-536.
  19. Suarez-Ahedo, C; Gui, C; Martin, T; Stake, C; Chandrasekaran, S; Christopher, J; Domb, B. Preservation of Acetabular Bone Stock in Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Conventional vs. Robotic Techniques: A Matched-Pair Controlled Study. CAOS International 15th Annual Conference; June 17-20, 2015, Vancouver, Canada.
  20. Suarez-Ahedo C, Gui C, Martin T. et al. Preservation of Acetabular Bone Stock in Total Hip Arthroplasty using Conventional vs. Robotic Techniques: A Matched-Pair Controlled Study. International Congress for Joint Reconstruction, 2015 World Arthroplasty Congress. April 16-18, 2015. Paris, France. Presentation available at: http://icjr.net/media/video.6648.htm?validated. Accessed Oct 2016.
  21. Bukowski B.R, Chughtai M, Anderson P. et al. Improved functional outcomes with robotic compared with manual total hip arthoplasty. Surg Technol Int. 2016 Oct.
  22. Bukowski BR, Abiola R, Christopher J, Conditt MA, Illgen RL. Outcomes after primary total hip arthroplasty: Manual compared with robotic assisted techniques. 16th annual conference: European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedic and Traumatology. Presentation 11:15am-11:20am, May 29, 2015, THA Approaches Session. Prague, Czech Republic.
  23. Illgen, R. Robotic Assisted THA: Reduced outliers and predictable outcomes presentation.
  24. Wuestemann T, Bastian A, Schmidt W, Cedermark C, Parvizi J, Rothman R. A novel technique for studying proximal femoral bone morphology for hip implant design. 2010 ORS Poster# 2217
  25. Wuestemann T, Bastian A, Parvizi J, Nessler J, Kolisek F. A novel tapered hip stem design optimized for femoral fit in a wide array of bone types. 2011 EFFORT
  26. Race A, Wuestemann, T, Collopy D. Comparison of the immediate post-operative stability of a novel tapered hip stem to a predicate design. 2012 ORS
  27. Lovell T, Hozack W, Kreuzer S, Merritt P, Nogler. Influence of Stem Length on the Insertion Path in THR. Poster # 2040.
  28. Capello W, D‘Antonio J, Jaffe W, Geesink R, Manley M, Feinbery J. Hydroxyapatite coated femoral components. 15 year follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;453:75–80.
  29. Incavo SJ, Beynnon BD, Coughlin KM. Total hip arthroplasty with the Secur-Fit and Secur-Fitplus femoral stem design. A brief follow-up report at 5 to 10 years. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23: 670–676.
  30. Australian Joint Replacement Registry Annual Report 2012.
  31. Report #: RD-13-023 “Determination of Secur-Fit Advanced Neck Lengths and Head Centers*Based on 556 CT Scans.
  32. Report #RD-14-071 “Global Native Femoral Anteversion SOMA analysis.”
  33. Gerges J, Hozack, W, Essig J, Boucher F, Asencio G. Changes in Femoral Version During Implantation of Anatomic Stems. ORS Abstract.
  34. Report #RD-13-598-001 “Changes in Femoral Version During Implantation of Anatomic Femoral Stems.”
  35. Ricci JL, Kauffman J, Jaffe W, et al. Comparison of Osseointegration and Bone Adhesion to Commercially Pure Titanium and Titanium Alloy. 23rd Ann. Mtg. Society for Biomaterials, 1997
  36. US Patent #6,475,243
  37. Litsky AS, et al., “Micromotion Between the Cup and the Liner in Modular Acetabular Prostheses”, 1999 Society for Biomaterials, 25th Annual Meeting Transactions.
  38. Nevelos J., Bhimji, S., Macintyre J., et al. Acetabular Bearing Design Has a Greater Influence on Jump Distance than Head Diameter. 56th Annual ORS Meeting: Poster #2028 2010.
  39. US Pat. 7,517,919
  40. Longaray et al. (2013). Fatigue and Wear Characterization of Various Contemporary Hip Bearing Materials. ORS Annual Meeting: Poster #1779.
  41. Stryker RD Test Report: RD-12-049.
  42. Yau S, Wang A, Essner A, Manley M, Dumbleton J. Sequential Irradiation and Annealing of Highly Crosslinked Polyethylenes Resist oxidation without sacrificing Physical/Mechanical Properties. 51st Annual Meeting of the Orthopedic Research Society. Poster No. 1670.
  43. Goetz et al., “Salvage of a Recurrently Dislocating Total Hip Prosthesis with Use of a Constrained Acetabular Component. A Retrospective Analysis of Fifty-six Cases.” J. Bone Joint Surg. Am, 80:502-9, 1998.
  44. Bremner et al., ”Use of Constrained Acetabular Components for Hip Instability: An Average 10-year Follow-up Study.” J. of Arthroplasty, Vol. 18 No. 7 Suppl. 1, 2003.
  45. Heffernan C., Bhimji S., Macintyre J., et al. (2011). Development and Validation of a Novel Modlar Dual Mobility Hip Bearing. ORS Annual Meeting Poster #1165.
  46. Stryker Test Report RD-10-073.
  47. Arno, S; Maffei, D; Walker, PS; Schwartzkopf, R; Desai, P; Steiner, GC. Retrospective Analysis of Total Knee Arthroplasty Cases for Visual, Histological and Clinical Eligibility of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties. J. Arthroplasty. 2011. 26(8): 1396-1403
  48. Aleto TJ, Berend ME, Ritter MA, et al. Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leading to revision. J Arthroplasty 2008;23(2):159.
  49. Collier, M. B., T. H. Eickmann, et al. (2006). “Patient, implant, and alignment factors associated with revision of medial compartment unicondylar arthroplasty.” J Arthroplasty 21(6 Suppl 2): 108-15.
  50. Roche M. Robotic Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: The MAKO Experience. Clin Sports Med. January 2014; 33(1): 123-32.
  51. Plate JF, Mofidi A, Mannava S, Smith BP, Lang JE, Poehling GG, Conditt MA, Jinnah RH. Achieving Accurate Ligament Balancing Using Robotic-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Advances in Orthopedics. March 2013. 2013. (ID 837167).
  52. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Registry. Annual Report. Adelaide: 2015.
  53. Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. 2015 Annual Report.
  54. L. A. Whiteside, “Making your next unicompartmental knee arthroplasty last: three keys to success,” Journal of Arthroplasty, vol. 20, supplement 3, pp. 2–3, 2005.
  55. Ashraf T, Newman JH, Desai VV, et al. Polyethylene wear in a non-congruous unicompartmental knee replacement: a retrieval analysis. Knee 2004;11(3):177.
  56. Hernigou P, Deschamps G. Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A(3): 506.
  57. Emerson Jr RH, Higgins LL. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the oxford prosthesis in patients with medial compartment arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90(1):118.
  58. Tsai, Tsung-Yuan; Dimitriou, Dimitris; Liow, Ming Han Lincoln; Rubash, Harry E; Li, Guoan; Kwon, Young-Min. Three-Dimensional Imaging Analysis of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Evaluated in Standing Position: Component Alignment and In Vivo Articular Contact. Journal of Arthroplasty. 2016, 31:1096-1101.
  59. Bell SW; Anthony I; Jones B; MacLean A; Rowe P; Blyth M. Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: data from a prospective, randomized controlled study. J Bone and Joint Surg. 2016;98: 627-35.
  60. Coon T; Roche M; Pearle A; Dounchis J; Borus T; Buechel F; Bhowmik-Stoker M; Conditt M. Short to mid-term survivorship of robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. EFORT 2016 Poster; 1-3 June; Geneva.
  61. Conditt, M; Coon, T; Roche, M; Dounchis, J; Borus, T; Buechel, F; Branch, S; Pearle, A. Short to Mid Term Survivorship of Robotically Assisted UKA: A Multicenter Study. ISTA 27th Annual Congress; September 24-27, 2014, Kyoto, Japan.
  62. Jones B; Blyth M; MacLean A; Anthony I; Rowe P. Accuracy of UKA implant positioning and early clinical outcomes in a RCT comparing robotic assisted and manual surgery 2013 CAOS International Conference, Orlando FL.
  63. Zuiderbaan HA; Van der list JP; Khamaisy S; Nawabi DH; Thein R; Ishmael C; Paul S; Pearle AD. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: Which type of artificial joint do patients forget? Knee Surg Sports Traumutol Arthrosc. Published online 21 Nov 2015.
  64. Borus T; Roberts D; Fairchild P; Christopher J; Conditt M; Branch S; Matthews J; Pirtle K; Baer M. UKA patients return to function earlier than TKA patients. Bone & Joint Journal Orthopaedic Proceedings Supplement 2016;98(SUPP 1): 50-50.
  65. Ghomrawi H et al. Effect of Age on Cost effectiveness of UKA vs TKA in the US. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97:396-402.
  66. Thein R, Zuiderbaan HA, Khamaisy S, Nawabi DH, Poultsides LA, Pearle AD. Medial Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty Improves Patellofemoral Congruence: a Possible Mechanistic Explanation for Poor Association Between Patellofemoral Degeneration and Clinical Outcome. J Arthroplasty, 2015. 30(11):1917-22.
  67. Zuiderbaan HA, Khamaisy S, Thein R, Nawabi DH, Pearle AD. Congruence and joint space width alterations of the medial compartment following lateral unicompartmental knee. Bone Joint J, 2015. 97-B(1): p. 50-5.
  68. Banks, S. Haptic robotics enable a systems approach to design of a minimally invasive modular knee arthroplasty. Am J of Orthop. 2009; 38(2 suppl): 23-27.
  69. Millennium Research Group. 2015. Table 20: Primary TKA Implant Procedures, by Approach, US, 2013-2023.
  70. Kurtz AAOS. Total knee and hip replacement projections 2030. http://jbjs.org/content/89/4/780. Accessed November 1, 2016.
  71. Willis-Owen CA, Brust K, Alsop H, Miraldo M, Cobb JP. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. Knee 2009;16(6):473–6
  72. Analysis conducted by Baker Tilly using a database compiled by OptumInsight, Inc. (Eden Prairie, MN) comprising claims generated by a national commercial health plan consisting of approximately 25 million members. Index cases incurred Jan. 2013 – Dec. 2013, revision cases incurred within 24 months of index procedure. This commercial data has not been blended with Medicare or Medicare Advantage data.
  73. Khan, M., Osman, K., Green, G., & Haddad, F. (2016). The epidemiology of failure in total knee arthroplasty. The Bone & Joint Journal, 105-112.
  74. Price, A., Longino, D., Rees, J., Rout, R., Pandit, H., Javiad, K., et al. (2010). Are pain and function better measures of outcome than revision rates after TKR in the younger paitent? The Knee, 196-199.
  75. Thomas K. Fehring, M., Odum, MEd, MA, S., Griffin, MD, W. L., Mason, MD, J. B., & Nadaud, MD, M. (2001). Early Failures in Total Knee Arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 315-318.
  76. RD test report A0018349 ver 3.2
  77. Harwin et al. Long-Term Survivorship and Clinical Outcomes of a Single Radius Total Knee Arthroplasty. Surgical Technology International. 2016. Volume 28.
  78. US Patent 7,160,330.
  79. Sales data on file
  80. Sales data on file
  81. Sales data on file
  82. Piazza S. Designed to maintain collateral ligament stability throughout the range of motion. Stryker-Initiated Dynamic Computer Simulations of Passive ROM and Oxford Rig Test (2003).
  83. Cook et al. Functional Outcomes Used to Compare single radius and Multiradius of Curvature Designs in Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Knee Surg (2012) 25:249-254.
  84. Larsen et al. Quantitative, Comparative Assessment of Gait Between Single-Radius and Multi-Radius Total Knee Arthroplasty Designs. J Arthroplasty (2015).
  85. Shimizu et al. In Vivo Movement of Femoral Flexion Axis of a Single-Radius Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty (2014).
  86. Bhowmik-Stoker et al. Mid-Term Results of Patient Satisfaction Following Total Knee Arthroplasty. ICJR (2014).
  87. National Joint Registry for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. 13th Annual Report 2016. Excerpt from table 3.28 Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative percentage probability of first revision (95% Cl) if a primary total knee replacement by main type of implant brand at the indicated number of years after primary operation.
  88. Mistry J, Elmallah R, Chughtai M, Oktem M, Harwin S, Mont M. Long-Term Survivorship and Clinical Outcomes of a Single Radius Total Knee Arthroplasty. International XXVIII.
  89. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. 2016. KT8 Cumulative Percent Revision of Primary Total Knee Replacement with Cement Fixation. Figure KT29.
  90. Scott C et al. Five-year survivorship and patient-reported outcomes of the Triathlon single-radius total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. Published online 13 March 2014.
  91. Iwaki et al. Tibiofemoral movement 1: the shapes and relative movements of the femur and tibia in the unloaded cadaveric knee. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] (2000) 82-B:1189-95.
  92. Hollister A. The Axes of Rotation of the Knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. Number 290:259-268.
  93. PFC Sigma Technical Monograph. DePuy Orthopaedics. 0611-29-050 (Rev. 1).
  94. Genesis II Kinematics. Smith & Nephew. 7128-0436.
  95. Value Brief: Attune Knee System. DePuy Orthopaedics. 0612-39-513 0113.
  96. Meneghini et al. Highly Crosslinked Versus Conventional Polyethylene in Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty at a Minimum 5-Year Followup. International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty (ISTA) 26th Annual Congress. October 16-19, 2013. Poster #2577.
  97. Bonutti et al. Influence of Design and Bearing Materials on Wear: Comparing Two Different TKA Designs. ISTA 2012. October 2012.
  98. Lonner, JH; John, TK; Conditt, MA. Robotic Arm-Assisted UKA Improved Tibial Component Alignment: A Pilot Study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. July 2009. 468(1): 141-6.
  99. Dunbar, NJ; Roche, MW; Park, BH; Branch, SH; Conditt, MA; Banks, SA. Accuracy of Dynamic Tactile-Guided Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty. May 2012. 27(5): 803-808.e1.
  100. Lonner, JH. Robotic-Arm Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Seminars in Arthroplasty. 2009. 20(1): 15-22.
  101. Esposito CI; Lipman J; Carroll KM; Jerabek SA; Mayman SA; Padgett DE. Acetabular Component Cup Placement Using a Haptically Guided Robotic Technology in Total Hip Arthroplasty. 16th EFORT Congress, May 28-30, 2015, Prague, Czech Republic.
  102. Bourne, R; Chesworth, B; Davis, A; Mahomed, N; Charron, K. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty who is satisfied and who is not? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 21 October 2009.
  103. Accuracy Assessment of Robotic and Manual TKA in a Cadaveric Model Technical Report A0018349, Ver 3.2