Talk:Computer-assisted orthopedic surgery

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ronald.nguyen. Peer reviewers: Kkokinawa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move
C.A.O.S → Computer Assisted Orthopedic Surgery &mdash; Name should be spelled out, Naming_conventions (also should not have name without final .) 216.41.16.186 (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. The abbreviated form seems less common, is ambiguous, and seems to be most often applied in the context of an international society rather than generally. Computer Assisted Orthopedic Surgery is the more general term, the more common term, and is unambiguous. Andrewa (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jafeluv (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Jafeluv. 155.198.108.162 (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Expert attention needed
This article is very poorly written, and does not address the full scope of CAOS; specific CAOS systems are poorly described. Further, there is no discussion of the benefits/disadvantages of CAOS. 216.41.16.186 (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we need a medical expert or an surgical expert who uses this often?DarkArcher25 (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made some adjustments to the article, and added multiple citations.Ronald.nguyen (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Plans to help edit the page
I plan on finding more sources to provide proper citation for the information currently presented. I also plan on adding headers and/or information based off of any recent studies regarding CAOS. In addition and if possible, I would like to add the following headers to help organize the information: Ronald.nguyen (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedure
 * Goals and Targeted Outcomes
 * Contraindications/Complications
 * Current Development Status

Peer editing
The information is really good and easy to read. The format of the page is user friendly and makes sense. I made some corrections on grammar, but overall, everything looks great. Kkokinawa (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Faculty Review of Article
1. Introductory Sentence. You define CAOS, so instead of using the word “it” substitute “CAOS” as in “Although records show it has been implemented since the 90’s”. Further, as you reference the publication, you do not need to say “Although records show…”. Perhaps begin the second sentence as “CAOS has been implemented since the 1990s”. Then begin a new sentence with “CAOS is an active research discipline ….” The word “still” adds nothing, as this is a new field and being active is sufficient. 2. Procedural Approaches needs to clarify the reasons why different imaging approaches would be used, which might relate to cost, radiation exposure, etc. As written this section would not aid in my understanding why a specific imaging modality might be preferred. The next section discusses shortcoming, but what are the advantages? Footnote states 3-D images are created when the computer interacts with body parts. This seems very unclear to me, as the procedure uses a computer to image body parts through a program to activate light sources and detectors to collect the data. Perhaps define 3-D? In CT-Based, Fluoroscopy, and Imageless sections there is confusing punctuation involving colons and semicolons that do not make sense, and in many cases can be deleted with improvement of clarity. CT is not defined. There is no discussion of why CT imaging would be preferable in some cases. In fluoroscopy a disadvantage appears to be that it is static. Does this mean that the CT-based approach is dynamic? 3. Shortcomings. Simplify and revise first sentence. Accuracy and precision of what specific aspects of the procedure. Then start a new sentence to describe why CAOS is not widely accepted, and group the reasons together such that you indicate CAOS is not in wide use because of increased medical costs, lack of insurance coverage, and increased radiation exposure. As increased medical costs are distinct form lack of insurance coverage, describe these differences. Build on concept that some studies suggest CAOS can be cost-effective for large volumes of geriatric patients. What is a large volume? Why only geriatric patients? How is the length and cost of the procedure affected (can you be specific?). 4. Current Development Status. It is almost never necessary to use the words “recent studies”. Just begin with “Implants and procedures….” Simplify the following: “However, it is not conclusive that CAOS technologies result in a significant long-term improvement in operative outcome, studies suggest that CAOS may lower revision rates”. Maybe “CAOS has been suggested to lower revision rates” because….describe why”. Last sentence in first paragraph (“Whilst the surgeon….”) makes no sense to me. Second paragraph, first sentence. Delete the word “currently”. Then describe why the femoral and tibial precision cuts make knee surgery the preferred CAOS operation (and not other procedures that apparently do not require precise cuts?). Third sentence can be simplified by deleting “Although CAOS is still not widely accepted by many orthopedic surgeons, it is shown to be an incredibly useful….” and replace with “CAOS is a useful tool in ….” As the lack of acceptance of CAOS has already been mentioned. TSQUIER (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)