Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42686203›Full record

ArticleBone & joint research2026

Laser scanning registration for knee arthroplasty.

Thomas Warren, Ulani Hayter Otaola, Brett Robertson, Riaz Khan, Sam Withers, Hari Goonatillake, Benjamin Hewitt, Tomasz Kozak, Sajan Kuriakose, Tareq Batanony and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Thomas WarrenArthroLase, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0009-0009-6994-1320
Ulani Hayter OtaolaArthroLase, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0009-0004-4923-3857
Brett RobertsonArthroLase, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4179-2342
Riaz KhanArthroLase, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0955-7273
Sam WithersArthroLase, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0009-0000-4979-2422
Hari GoonatillakeArthroLase, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0009-0001-9296-9438
Benjamin HewittArthroLase, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0009-0006-9010-9510
Tomasz KozakArthroLase, Perth, Australia.
Sajan KuriakoseArthroLase, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0009-0009-8165-2601
Tareq BatanonyCaira Surgical, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0009-0006-9534-5010
Jon GreenwaldCaira Surgical, New York, New York, USA.
Morteza MeftahCaira Surgical, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1202-9316

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: Accurate registration of anatomy is fundamental to robotic and computer-assisted surgery; however, conventional methods rely on manual data acquisition performed by the surgeon using a tracked probe that is slow and affected by operator variability. Limitations of manual methods have hindered wider adoption of surgical navigation despite its benefits for alignment accuracy, particularly in orthopaedic applications. This study evaluates a laser surface scanning system, LumaScan, against standard intraoperative probe-based registration with a controlled phantom knee model. Methods: Surgeons performed repeated probe-based data acquisition for registration, while LumaScan executed operator-initiated scans mounted to a robotic arm. The accuracy of each modality was assessed using root mean square (RMS) error relative to a CT-derived reference model, alongside evaluations of repeatability and acquisition time. Results: LumaScan achieved a RMS error of 0.07 mm (SD 0.02), compared to probe-based methods, which resulted in a RMS error of 0.34 mm (SD 0.36). Acquisition time was reduced from 112 seconds (SD 75.8) manually to 6.38 seconds (SD 0.03) for LumaScan (p < 0.001), with probe-based timing increasing three times from the fastest to the slowest participant despite a fixed protocol. The errors of the femur and tibia achieved by LumaScan had a > 70% reduction compared to manual surface acquisition, with these results being statistically significant (p < 0.001). The results demonstrate that robotic laser scanning can significantly improve speed, accuracy, and precision over manual methods. Minimizing operator influence and standardizing registration has the potential to reduce error sources that persist in clinical workflows, subsequently accelerating the integration of navigation and robotics into routine orthopaedic procedures. Conclusion: LumaScan enables faster, more accurate, and more precise anatomical registration than manual methods.

Identifiers

PMID42686203
PMCPMC13537885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.