Copyright
©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Orthop. Jun 18, 2025; 16(6): 107215
Published online Jun 18, 2025. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v16.i6.107215
Published online Jun 18, 2025. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v16.i6.107215
Table 1 The comparison between commonly used techniques in joint replacement
Augmented reality | Surgical robot | Traditional navigation | |
Accuracy | High precision, real-time visualization, close to robotic levels | Extremely high precision, relies on robotic arm and algorithms | Moderate precision, heavily dependent on surgeon experience |
Cost-effectiveness | Lower cost, affordable equipment, faster recovery | High cost, expensive maintenance, suitable for high-budget centers | Moderate cost, longer surgery and recovery times |
Learning curve | Steep but easier than robotic systems | Very steep, requires mastering complex operations | Low difficulty, mature and easy to learn |
Clinical adoption | Gradually increasing, limited by device performance and acceptance | Low adoption, mainly in large hospitals and complex cases | Widely adopted, but limited in precision and efficiency |
Surgery time | Shorter, with real-time guidance improving efficiency | Longer, due to robotic setup and calibration | Moderate, requiring intraoperative adjustments |
Postoperative recovery | Faster recovery, less trauma, higher satisfaction | Faster recovery, but higher financial burden | Slower recovery, more trauma |
Technical limitations | Limited battery life, potential neck fatigue, lack of long-term data | High cost, complex maintenance, limited flexibility | Depends on preoperative imaging, limited real-time adjustment |
Future potential | High, with artificial intelligence, 5G, and augmented reality integration, broad applications | Significant for complex surgeries, but limited by cost | Limited, likely to be replaced by augmented reality and robotics |
Table 2 Summary of key studies on augmented reality-assisted total knee arthroplasty
Ref. | Study design | Sample size | AR system | Key focus | Main findings |
Tsukada et al[7], 2019 | Single-center pilot study | 10 | AR-KNEE | Tibial resection accuracy | AR provided reliable accuracy in coronal, sagittal, and rotational alignment |
Tsukada et al[8], 2021 | Prospective controlled trial | 74 | AR-KNEE | Distal femoral osteotomy accuracy | AR enabled more accurate osteotomy compared to conventional intramedullary guides |
Bennett et al[9], 2023 | Prospective study | 20 | AR-AN | Coronal component alignment | Low rate of component malposition in the coronal plane |
Su et al[19], 2023 | A systematic review and meta-analysis | - | AR-based rehabilitation vs conventional | Pain, function and anxiety | AR-based rehabilitation improved early pain, function, and anxiety |
Shim et al[6], 2023 | Randomized controlled trial | 56 | AR-based rehabilitation vs conventional | Function | AR-based rehabilitation may be useful treatment as an alternative to conventional rehabilitation |
- Citation: He M, Sun AR, Wu XX, Fan XW, Mao XZ. Augmented reality in total knee arthroplasty: Balancing precision, promise, and challenges in surgical innovation. World J Orthop 2025; 16(6): 107215
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v16/i6/107215.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v16.i6.107215