Orthopedic navigation system: Overview, Uses and Top Manufacturer Company

Posted on February 28, 2026 | by drthomas

Introduction

An Orthopedic navigation system is a computer-assisted surgical navigation medical device used in the operating room (OR) to help orthopedic teams track anatomy and surgical instruments in real time. By translating patient anatomy and instrument movement into on-screen guidance, it supports tasks such as bone resection alignment, implant positioning, and trajectory planning during procedures like joint replacement and spine instrumentation.

In modern hospitals and ambulatory surgical settings, this type of hospital equipment matters for two main reasons. First, it is part of a broader push toward standardization, reproducibility, and documentation in complex orthopedic procedures. Second, it has practical operational implications: it affects OR setup time, staff training, sterile processing workflows, device maintenance, IT integration, and procurement planning.

This article is written for both learners and decision-makers. Medical students, residents, and trainees will learn what an Orthopedic navigation system is, how it generally works, how to interpret common outputs, and what limitations to keep in mind. Hospital administrators, clinicians, biomedical engineers, and procurement teams will also find practical guidance on setup requirements, safety practices, troubleshooting, infection prevention, and how the global market environment varies by country.

This is general educational information only. Clinical use should always follow local protocols, supervision requirements, and the manufacturer’s Instructions for Use (IFU).

What is Orthopedic navigation system and why do we use it?

An Orthopedic navigation system is a category of medical equipment that provides intraoperative guidance by tracking the position of patient anatomy and surgical instruments and showing their relationships on a computer display. It is often described as part of computer-assisted orthopedic surgery (CAOS).

Core purpose

The purpose of an Orthopedic navigation system is to help the surgical team:

Plan and execute bone cuts, implant placement, and instrument trajectories with on-screen feedback
Measure angles, distances, and alignment parameters during the procedure
Document steps and final positions in a structured way (capabilities vary by manufacturer)
Support teaching by making surgical geometry and alignment concepts more visible to trainees

Navigation is not the same as robotics. A navigation platform typically guides the surgeon’s hands and decisions, while robotic systems may additionally provide instrument constraints, haptic feedback, or automated assistance. Some commercial ecosystems include both; details vary by manufacturer.

Where it is used (common clinical settings)

You may find an Orthopedic navigation system in:

Tertiary hospitals and academic centers, especially for arthroplasty, spine, and complex reconstruction
High-volume orthopedic specialty hospitals focused on standardization and outcomes tracking
Private hospitals that invest in advanced OR technology and surgeon recruitment
Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) where procedure efficiency and consistent workflows are priorities (adoption varies by region and case mix)
Training labs and simulation centers used for resident education and surgeon credentialing

How it works (plain-language mechanism)

Most Orthopedic navigation system platforms have three core jobs:

Create a coordinate system for the patient (where the anatomy “is” in space)
Track instruments relative to that coordinate system (where the tools “are” in space)
Display guidance that helps the surgeon align, position, or aim (what to do next)

A simplified view of the workflow:

A tracking method (often optical or electromagnetic) locates “markers” attached to the patient and instruments.
The system performs registration, which is the process of matching the patient’s real anatomy to a digital model or to a set of measured landmarks.
After registration, the Orthopedic navigation system can show instrument angles/positions in real time as the surgeon moves tools.

Common technology types (non-brand-specific)

Orthopedic navigation technology varies, but many systems fall into combinations of the following:

Optical tracking systems: use infrared cameras to detect reflective spheres or LED markers on rigid arrays. They require line-of-sight between camera and markers.
Electromagnetic (EM) tracking systems: use a field generator and sensor coils. They reduce line-of-sight constraints but can be sensitive to metal interference and OR layout.
Image-based navigation: uses preoperative or intraoperative imaging (e.g., CT or fluoroscopy) to build or reference anatomy. Imaging modality support varies by manufacturer and local approvals.
Imageless navigation: uses intraoperative landmark collection and kinematic assessment (e.g., joint motion) without preoperative CT, depending on the procedure and system design.

The “best fit” technology depends on procedure type, surgeon preference, workflow, and the facility’s imaging and sterile processing capabilities.

Why hospitals use it (benefits and tradeoffs)

Hospitals adopt an Orthopedic navigation system for potential benefits such as:

More consistent intraoperative measurements (angles, alignment, resection thickness)
Support for complex anatomy (deformity, revisions, limited visualization)
Reduced variability between operators (to a degree; evidence and impact vary)
Procedure documentation useful for audit, teaching, and quality improvement (features vary by manufacturer)
Training advantages, because geometry and alignment become visible and measurable

Tradeoffs to plan for include:

Added setup and registration time, especially early in adoption
Ongoing costs for consumables, service, calibration tools, and staff training
Dependence on accurate registration and stable trackers
Potential workflow disruption if tracking is lost or equipment fails

How medical students and trainees encounter it

In training, learners often meet an Orthopedic navigation system in three ways:

In the OR, observing setup, tracker placement, registration, and the surgeon’s use of the display
In skills labs, practicing registration steps, instrument calibration, and error-checking
In perioperative discussions, reviewing alignment concepts (e.g., mechanical axis), documentation outputs, and troubleshooting

For learners, the key educational value is understanding that navigation outputs are measurements based on assumptions and registration quality, not “ground truth.” Knowing how errors occur is as important as knowing how the tool works when everything goes well.

When should I use Orthopedic navigation system (and when should I not)?

Clinical decisions about using an Orthopedic navigation system depend on the procedure, the team’s experience, the facility’s resources, and patient-specific factors. The points below are general and must be adapted to local protocols and the manufacturer’s IFU.

Appropriate use cases (common examples)

An Orthopedic navigation system may be used when teams want additional intraoperative measurement and guidance, such as:

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA): supporting femoral/tibial cut alignment, gap assessment, and component positioning
Total hip arthroplasty (THA): supporting acetabular cup orientation, leg length/offset assessment, and component placement (capabilities vary)
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA): supporting precise component alignment and bone preparation
Spine surgery: planning and guiding pedicle screw trajectories and other instrumentation steps (system compatibility varies)
Complex deformity correction and osteotomy: supporting alignment targets and intraoperative confirmation
Revision surgery: where landmarks can be altered and measurement support may be helpful
Teaching cases: where visualizing angles and decisions supports education and standardization

Situations where it may not be suitable

An Orthopedic navigation system may be less suitable when:

The case is time-critical and navigation setup/registration would meaningfully delay care (local policy and case type matter)
The facility lacks trained users or consistent support (e.g., a navigation-trained scrub team or vendor support)
The OR environment cannot reliably support tracking (space constraints, repeated line-of-sight interruptions, electromagnetic interference, unstable mounts)
The procedure type is outside the system’s validated indications (varies by manufacturer and regulatory jurisdiction)
Required accessories or sterile components are unavailable, expired, or not sterilized
The team cannot place or maintain stable reference arrays/trackers (e.g., due to anatomy, access, or fixation limitations)
The workflow would become unsafe if the team is likely to rely on navigation without a robust fallback plan

General safety cautions and contraindication-style considerations (non-clinical)

Navigation safety is mostly about accuracy, stability, and verification. Common caution themes include:

Registration error: If the anatomical registration is inaccurate, all downstream measurements can be misleading.
Tracker movement: If a patient reference array loosens or shifts, the system may “think” anatomy has moved when it has not (or vice versa).
Line-of-sight loss (optical systems): staff, equipment, or drapes can block the camera’s view of markers.
Electromagnetic interference (EM systems): metal objects, certain OR tables, or equipment positioning may degrade tracking accuracy.
Overreliance: Navigation can create false confidence if users do not routinely verify accuracy with independent checks.
Imaging-related considerations (image-based workflows): radiation exposure, image quality, and correct patient/image matching must be controlled by protocol.
Implanted electronic devices: electromagnetic fields may require caution in some situations; guidance varies by manufacturer and facility policy.

Practical decision framing for trainees and leaders

A helpful way to think about “should we use navigation today?” is to ask:

Do we have the right team (trained surgeon, trained OR staff, support plan)?
Do we have the right kit (sterile arrays, calibrated instruments, updated procedure software)?
Do we have a verification plan (how will we confirm navigation accuracy intraoperatively)?
Do we have a fallback plan (what happens if navigation fails mid-case)?

Clinical judgment, supervision, and local protocols should always take priority over technology preference.

What do I need before starting?

An Orthopedic navigation system is not only a cart and a screen; it is a workflow that spans procurement, sterile processing, OR setup, IT, and biomedical engineering.

Required environment and infrastructure

Most systems require:

Dedicated OR space with a stable location for the workstation/cart and tracking hardware
Reliable power with appropriate electrical safety controls; backup power planning varies by facility
Ergonomic monitor placement so the surgeon can see guidance without unsafe head/neck rotation
Cable management to reduce trip hazards and accidental disconnections
If imaging integration is used: access to imaging workflows and data transfer processes (e.g., DICOM routing), which vary by manufacturer and hospital IT policies

Facilities should also plan for controlled storage of navigation accessories and sterilizable components.

Common accessories and consumables

Accessories vary widely, but may include:

Tracking camera(s) or EM field generator (depending on technology)
Workstation/cart, monitors, and input devices (touchscreen, mouse, foot pedal)
Patient reference arrays (rigid frames fixed to bone or stable anatomy)
Instrument trackers (arrays, marker mounts, or sensorized instruments)
Calibration tools (e.g., pointer calibration fixtures)
Sterile drapes or sterile covers for non-sterile components entering the sterile field
Fixation pins/clamps for arrays (single-use or reusable; varies by manufacturer)
Compatible instrument sets and cutting guides (procedure- and system-specific)

Procurement teams should explicitly map which items are:

Capital equipment (one-time purchase)
Reusable sterile items (reprocessed through sterile processing)
Single-use consumables (ongoing budget impact)
Optional add-ons (additional procedures, software modules)

Training and competency expectations

Successful and safe use depends on role-based competency. Typical expectations include:

Surgeons: procedure-specific navigation training, understanding registration, accuracy verification, and conversion to conventional technique if needed.
Scrub nurses/technologists: sterile setup, draping, tracker handling, calibration steps, and maintaining line-of-sight.
Circulating staff: room setup, cable routing, non-sterile device interactions, and coordination with imaging/IT.
Biomedical engineering (clinical engineering): acceptance testing, preventive maintenance planning, repair triage, and safety checks.
IT / informatics (where applicable): cybersecurity review, user account controls, device network policy, and imaging connectivity.

Many facilities formalize this with credentialing, sign-offs, proctoring, and periodic refreshers, especially if case volumes are intermittent.

Pre-use checks and documentation (day-of-case mindset)

A practical pre-use check for an Orthopedic navigation system typically includes:

Confirm the system is scheduled and available for the case (avoid last-minute conflicts).
Verify the device passed required preventive maintenance and electrical safety checks per policy.
Confirm required procedure software and implant libraries are present and correct (varies by manufacturer).
Inspect tracking hardware: camera lens/cover integrity, marker condition, cable strain relief, and mounting stability.
Confirm sterile components are sterilized, packaged intact, and within expiry.
Perform system self-tests and calibration checks as directed by the IFU.
Confirm the ability to save/export intraoperative documentation as required by local policy (if used).

Documentation expectations vary, but may include:

Equipment log entry (case ID, software version, serial numbers as needed)
Tracking of sterile reusable components through sterile processing
Consumable traceability (lot numbers) where local policy requires it
Incident/near-miss documentation if any unexpected tracking behavior occurs

Operational prerequisites for hospitals (beyond the OR)

Hospital leaders and biomedical teams should ensure:

Commissioning and acceptance testing: verifying performance at install (accuracy checks per IFU), electrical safety, and integration readiness.
A preventive maintenance schedule and spare parts strategy aligned with clinical demand.
A clear service and support model (in-house capability vs. vendor service contract).
Cybersecurity and software update governance (who approves updates, when they are installed, and how downtime is managed).
Sterile processing capacity for navigation-specific instruments, including validated cleaning and sterilization cycles (varies by manufacturer).
Policies for loaner instrumentation and tracking accessories, including quarantine processes and cleaning verification.

Roles and responsibilities (who owns what)

Clarity here prevents workflow failures:

Clinicians (surgeons/anesthesia/perioperative leadership) own clinical appropriateness, intraoperative decision-making, and team communication.
OR nursing leadership owns staffing, competency, case scheduling feasibility, and checklist integration.
Biomedical engineering owns device safety, maintenance readiness, repair coordination, and lifecycle planning.
Procurement/supply chain owns contracting, pricing models (capital vs. per-case), consumable availability, and vendor performance management.
IT/security owns network policy, access controls, and data handling where the system stores or transfers patient-related data.

How do I use it correctly (basic operation)?

Workflows for an Orthopedic navigation system vary by model, procedure, and tracking technology. The steps below describe a typical, widely applicable flow that most teams will recognize, even if details differ.

A universal principle: accuracy depends on verification

Navigation is only as reliable as:

stable trackers,
correct registration, and
ongoing checks that the system still matches reality.

If the team cannot verify accuracy, the safest approach is to pause and reassess per local protocol.

Basic step-by-step workflow (generic)

Pre-procedure planning (if applicable)
– If the workflow uses preoperative imaging, confirm the correct study is available and matched to the correct patient per policy.
– Select the correct procedure module and laterality.
– Confirm that any implant library selections align with the planned case (varies by manufacturer and surgeon preference).
Room setup and equipment positioning
– Position the workstation/cart so the surgeon can view the screen while maintaining sterile technique.
– Place the tracking camera or EM field generator in the recommended location and range.
– Ensure stable mounting (avoid bump-prone positions) and route cables away from walkways.
Power-on and system checks
– Boot the system and complete any self-tests.
– Confirm tracking is functional before draping (you want to detect hardware problems early).
– Verify date/time, storage availability, and any required case identifiers per documentation policy.
Sterile draping and sterile field integration
– Apply sterile covers/drapes as required by the IFU.
– Confirm that sterile covers do not block sensors, vents, or camera optics.
– Ensure the sterile team knows which parts can be touched sterile vs. non-sterile.
Attach patient reference array (tracker) securely
– Fix the reference array to a stable anatomic location appropriate for the procedure.
– Confirm it is mechanically secure and unlikely to be bumped or loosened during retraction or instrument changes.
– Immediately re-check tracking quality after fixation.
Calibrate and register instruments
– Attach instrument trackers to the specific tools required (pointer, resection guides, drills, etc.).
– Perform calibration steps so the Orthopedic navigation system knows where the tip or cutting plane is relative to the marker array.
– Confirm calibration success and repeat if the system indicates poor quality.
Perform patient registration
– Collect anatomical landmarks or surface points with a tracked pointer, or register using imaging if the workflow is image-based.
– Follow the IFU for landmark selection and point acquisition technique (fast “tap” vs. stable hold; varies by manufacturer).
– Complete any kinematic steps required for certain procedures (e.g., joint motion assessment) if the workflow includes it.
Verify registration accuracy
– Use independent checkpoints: touch known landmarks and confirm the on-screen cursor matches.
– If the system provides an error metric (e.g., registration error), interpret it cautiously and in context; acceptable thresholds are manufacturer- and procedure-specific.
– If verification is poor, re-register rather than proceeding.
Use navigation during the procedure
– Proceed with bone preparation, alignment, and implant positioning using the on-screen guidance.
– Maintain awareness of line-of-sight (optical) or interference sources (EM).
– Re-verify accuracy after major steps, after repositioning, or if the array is bumped.
Complete the case and document outputs
– Save case data/screenshots if used by local policy (capabilities vary).
– Remove trackers and fixation devices safely, accounting for sharps and hardware.
– Ensure the device is placed in a safe state for cleaning and transport.

Typical settings (what they generally mean)

Navigation interfaces differ, but common adjustable elements include:

Procedure selection and laterality: selecting the correct protocol is foundational to correct guidance.
Tracking quality indicators: may show marker visibility, signal strength, or confidence.
Calibration status: confirming instruments are recognized and properly calibrated.
Alignment targets: numerical goals may be set or displayed (surgeon- and procedure-specific; not standardized globally).
Warnings for out-of-range tracking: alerts when markers are too close/far or partially occluded (varies by manufacturer).

Avoid changing configuration mid-case unless the team understands the implications and local policy allows it.

Common universal steps (regardless of model)

Across most Orthopedic navigation system workflows, these steps are “non-negotiable” for safe use:

Confirm patient identity and laterality before registration.
Ensure stable patient reference array fixation.
Calibrate the instruments you actually plan to use.
Verify registration against real anatomy before relying on numeric outputs.
Re-check accuracy after bumps, repositioning, or unexpected readings.
Maintain a clear fallback plan if navigation becomes unreliable.

How do I keep the patient safe?

Patient safety with an Orthopedic navigation system is primarily about maintaining accurate guidance, preventing workflow-related harm, and ensuring that the technology does not distract from core surgical and perioperative safety practices.

Safety practices before incision

Team briefing that includes navigation: clarify who is operating the system, who confirms accuracy, and what the conversion plan is if navigation fails.
Time-out integration: confirm laterality, procedure module selection, and whether the case is image-based or imageless.
Equipment readiness confirmation: ensure trackers, drapes, and sterile components are present and intact before the patient is prepped and draped.

For administrators, these items are often best enforced with a standardized “navigation add-on” checklist appended to existing surgical safety checklists.

Intraoperative safety: accuracy and stability controls

Key risk controls include:

Secure tracker fixation: a loose reference array is a major hazard because it can silently invalidate measurements.
Line-of-sight management (optical): position staff and equipment to avoid blocking the camera; plan for retractor handles, suction tubing, and hands crossing the field.
Interference control (EM): reduce nearby ferromagnetic clutter and standardize equipment placement if the facility uses EM tracking.
Repeat verification: verify accuracy at meaningful points in the case, not only once at the beginning.
Sterile barrier integrity: ensure sterile covers remain intact and appropriately positioned; compromised covers can create contamination risks and may also degrade tracking.

Alarm handling and “human factors” (why smart teams still make errors)

Navigation alarms and warnings often relate to tracking loss, poor calibration, or low confidence. Safe practice is to treat alarms as prompts to pause and reassess, not as nuisances to dismiss.

Common human factors pitfalls:

Screen fixation: the surgeon or assistant watches the screen and loses awareness of tissue tension, retractor position, or tool depth.
Automation bias: the team trusts the numeric display even when anatomic feel or visual cues disagree.
Cognitive overload: early in adoption, more steps and more information can increase error risk unless roles are clearly assigned.

Practical mitigations:

Designate a trained navigation operator who can manage prompts and keep tracking stable while the surgeon focuses on the field.
Use closed-loop communication (“tracking lost—pause—reacquired—verify checkpoint”).
Keep the monitor in a position that supports quick glances rather than continuous watching.

Radiation and imaging considerations (when relevant)

Some navigation workflows use intraoperative fluoroscopy or other imaging. Safety principles include:

Apply the facility’s radiation safety practices consistently (shielding, distance, minimizing exposure time).
Confirm correct image-to-patient matching and laterality labeling when images drive navigation guidance.
Ensure image quality is sufficient for the navigation task; poor imaging can produce misleading guidance.

The magnitude and type of imaging exposure varies by procedure and manufacturer.

Labeling checks, traceability, and incident reporting culture

Hospitals should treat an Orthopedic navigation system like other high-impact clinical devices:

Verify accessories and consumables are within expiry and compatible with the system version.
Maintain traceability for reusable sterile components through sterile processing and inventory systems.
Encourage reporting of near misses (e.g., tracker loosened but noticed early) to improve processes.

A strong incident reporting culture is particularly important because navigation problems can be subtle: a case may “finish fine,” yet the system may have drifted or been used outside recommended conditions.

Cybersecurity and data safety (often overlooked)

If the Orthopedic navigation system stores patient identifiers, images, or exports case reports, safety includes:

Role-based logins where supported (varies by manufacturer).
Controlled use of USB devices and external media per policy.
Update management to reduce exposure to known vulnerabilities without disrupting clinical operations.
Clear rules for data retention and deletion consistent with facility policy and local regulations.

How do I interpret the output?

An Orthopedic navigation system produces visual and numeric outputs that represent the relationship between instruments, planned targets, and the registered patient anatomy. Correct interpretation requires understanding what the system is measuring—and what it cannot measure.

Common types of outputs

Depending on the procedure and system, outputs may include:

Real-time 3D visualization of anatomy and instruments (model-based or landmark-based)
Angles and alignment metrics (e.g., varus/valgus, flexion/extension, slope, version)
Distances and offsets (e.g., resection thickness, leg length/offset estimates, component translation)
Trajectory guidance (e.g., planned path for a screw or drill)
Confidence indicators such as tracking quality, marker visibility, or registration error metrics (names vary by manufacturer)
Case reports summarizing key measurements and final settings (availability varies by manufacturer and local configuration)

How clinicians typically use the outputs

Clinicians generally use navigation outputs to:

Compare current instrument position to the intended plan or target
Make incremental adjustments (e.g., tweak a cutting block position)
Confirm that steps have achieved expected alignment or orientation
Document final implant position parameters for quality improvement or teaching

For trainees, the important learning point is that navigation displays are decision-support tools, not replacements for surgical anatomy knowledge.

Common pitfalls and limitations

Navigation errors often come from predictable sources:

Landmark selection errors: selecting the wrong point (or inconsistent points) during registration can bias the entire model.
Soft-tissue influence: palpation-based landmark capture can be affected by soft tissue thickness and access limitations.
Tracker shift: even small movement of the patient reference array can create large apparent changes on screen.
Occlusion or interference: optical line-of-sight interruptions and EM interference can create intermittent tracking loss or drift.
Coordinate system confusion: misunderstanding which axis or reference frame is displayed can lead to wrong interpretations.
False reassurance: the display may look stable even when registration is wrong; verification checks are essential.

Artifacts, false positives/negatives, and clinical correlation

Navigation can produce “convincing” numbers that are not clinically meaningful if upstream steps were compromised. Examples of artifact patterns (general concepts, not tied to any brand):

A sudden jump in measurements after a bump suggests possible tracker movement or tracking reacquisition error.
Persistent disagreement between navigation and anatomic cues suggests registration error, calibration error, or wrong procedure/laterality selection.
Unusually variable readings during a stable step may indicate intermittent marker occlusion or interference.

The safest approach is to correlate navigation outputs with:

direct anatomic assessment,
standard surgical checks (as taught locally), and
imaging or mechanical alignment tools when appropriate and available.

What if something goes wrong?

Even well-run programs experience issues with an Orthopedic navigation system, particularly during early adoption or when staffing and room setups vary. A calm, standardized response reduces risk.

First priority: pause and protect

If something unexpected happens (tracking lost, inconsistent readings, system error):

Pause the navigation-dependent step.
Maintain sterile field integrity.
Confirm patient safety and surgical field status before troubleshooting technology.

Troubleshooting checklist (practical and non-brand-specific)

A. Power and system status

Confirm the system is powered and connected to stable electricity.
Check for loose power cords, tripped breakers, or accidental cart unplugging.
Note any error codes/messages for documentation.

B. Tracking integrity

Optical: confirm camera line-of-sight to all required markers; remove obstructions and re-check.
Optical: ensure reflective markers are clean, intact, and correctly oriented.
EM: check the field generator position and remove unnecessary metal objects near the field.
Ensure tracked instruments and arrays are the correct ones for the procedure and properly attached.

C. Reference array stability

Inspect the patient reference array fixation for any movement or looseness.
If the array may have shifted, assume the navigation model is unreliable until re-verified.
Re-check known landmarks and compare to the on-screen pointer position.

D. Calibration and registration

Confirm instruments are still calibrated; re-calibrate if there is any doubt.
Re-run registration if verification fails.
Confirm correct laterality and correct procedure module selection.

E. Workflow and human factors

Confirm that a trained operator is managing navigation steps.
Reduce room traffic and reposition staff/equipment to protect tracking stability.

When to stop using the system for that case

Stop or convert to a non-navigation approach when:

You cannot verify that navigation guidance matches real anatomy.
Tracking quality is unstable and repeatedly lost in a way that affects critical steps.
The sterile barrier is compromised and cannot be corrected per policy.
The system exhibits unexplained behavior that could create unsafe guidance.
Continuing would cause unreasonable delay or distraction from patient care.

What “conversion” means depends on procedure type and local practice (e.g., switching to conventional instruments). This should be planned in advance.

When to escalate (biomedical engineering, IT, manufacturer)

Escalate when:

Hardware issues recur (camera failure, sensor malfunction, damaged cables).
The system fails self-tests or calibration repeatedly.
Software crashes, data corruption is suspected, or login/export functions fail in a way that affects workflow.
There is any suspicion of a device safety issue requiring formal reporting.

Biomedical engineering typically leads technical triage and coordinates vendor support. IT may need to support network, storage, or cybersecurity-related issues if the system connects to hospital systems.

Documentation and reporting expectations (general)

Facilities commonly expect:

An OR note or internal log describing what happened and what was done (include error codes/messages when possible).
A biomedical engineering service ticket if equipment performance is involved.
An incident report if patient safety was affected or a near miss occurred, aligned with local governance.
Quarantine of suspect components (e.g., a damaged tracker) until inspected.

Regulatory reporting obligations vary by country and should follow local policy and legal requirements.

Infection control and cleaning of Orthopedic navigation system

An Orthopedic navigation system interacts with the sterile field through drapes, trackers, and instrument attachments, while also having non-sterile surfaces (cart, monitor, keyboard). Infection prevention must address both.

Cleaning principles for mixed sterile/non-sterile equipment

Key principles include:

Follow the IFU: approved disinfectants, contact times, and sterilization methods vary by manufacturer and material.
Separate workflows: non-sterile console cleaning is different from reprocessing reusable sterile components.
Avoid fluid intrusion: many navigation carts include computers and connectors that can be damaged by excess liquid.
Inspect before and after: cracks, worn covers, and damaged cables can become bioburden traps.

Disinfection vs. sterilization (general concepts)

Cleaning removes visible soil and is usually required before any disinfection or sterilization step.
Disinfection reduces microbial load on noncritical surfaces (e.g., cart handles, monitor bezels). Level (low/intermediate) depends on facility policy and product compatibility.
Sterilization is used for critical items that enter sterile fields or contact sterile tissue (e.g., reusable tracker arrays or instrument attachments), using validated methods (steam, low-temperature, etc.) per IFU.

Which components require sterilization vs. disinfection depends on design and intended use (varies by manufacturer).

High-touch points to prioritize

Common high-touch areas include:

Touchscreen, keyboard, mouse/trackpad
Cart handles and height-adjustment levers
Camera housing and adjustment knobs (if handled during setup)
Cables near the sterile field and connection points
Foot pedals or control switches
Any non-sterile surfaces frequently touched by circulating staff

Example cleaning workflow (non-brand-specific)

A practical, policy-aligned workflow may look like:

After the case (in OR) – Remove and dispose of single-use drapes/covers per policy.
– Wipe down non-sterile external surfaces with approved disinfectant wipes, respecting contact time.
– Inspect for visible contamination, damage, or loose parts.
Reusable sterile components – Segregate reusable arrays/instrument attachments in a designated container.
– Transport to sterile processing (SPD/CSSD) using standard contaminated-item procedures.
– Reprocess per validated instructions: pre-clean, manual cleaning (as required), inspection, packaging, sterilization cycle, and documentation.
Before the next case – Confirm the system is dry, intact, and ready.
– Verify sterile components have completed the sterilization cycle and are available.

Practical reminders for infection prevention teams

Validate cleaning products against device materials; some disinfectants can damage plastics, coatings, and reflective marker surfaces.
Ensure loaner navigation accessories (if used) follow the same reprocessing verification standards as owned equipment.
Consider including the Orthopedic navigation system in environmental services and OR cleaning audits, since it is often moved between rooms.

Medical Device Companies & OEMs

Understanding who makes what matters for purchasing, service, and long-term support of an Orthopedic navigation system.

Manufacturer vs. OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer)

A manufacturer is the company that markets the final product and is typically responsible for regulatory compliance, labeling, training, and overall system performance.
An OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) supplies components or subsystems that may be integrated into the final product (for example, cameras, computers, displays, tracking sensors, or software modules).
In some cases, an OEM builds a full platform that is rebranded; in other cases, OEM parts are embedded inside a system sold under a different brand.

Why OEM relationships matter for hospitals

OEM relationships can affect:

Serviceability: availability of spare parts and whether repairs can be done locally or only by the manufacturer.
Lifecycle support: how long components remain supported as technology changes.
Software updates and cybersecurity: dependence on third-party operating systems, drivers, and libraries can influence patching cycles.
Compatibility: whether accessories and instrument sets remain compatible across software/hardware generations.

Hospitals often benefit from asking vendors to clarify component sourcing, end-of-life policies, and support commitments (details may be “Not publicly stated” and handled under contract).

Top 5 World Best Medical Device Companies / Manufacturers

Example industry leaders (not a ranking). Specific Orthopedic navigation system offerings, indications, and availability vary by country and manufacturer.

Stryker
Stryker is widely known for orthopedic implants, surgical instruments, and OR technology portfolios. In many markets, it is associated with integrated orthopedic procedure ecosystems that may include navigation and related digital tools. Global reach is broad, but product mix and support models vary by region and facility type. Hospitals typically evaluate training, service response, and consumable availability alongside capital purchase.
Zimmer Biomet
Zimmer Biomet is a long-established orthopedic company with a large implant portfolio and associated surgical technologies. Many facilities recognize its presence in arthroplasty and sports medicine categories, and in some markets it offers navigation-related solutions. Availability of modules, instrument compatibility, and service structures vary by country. Procurement teams often focus on instrument logistics and sterile processing implications.
Smith+Nephew
Smith+Nephew has global presence across orthopedics, sports medicine, and wound care. In orthopedic surgery, the company is commonly associated with implants and enabling technologies that may include navigation or alignment tools in certain markets. Adoption and support depend on local distributor networks and training capacity. Facilities should confirm procedure compatibility and long-term software support during evaluation.
DePuy Synthes (Johnson & Johnson MedTech)
DePuy Synthes is part of a larger healthcare technology organization and is broadly recognized for orthopedic and trauma implants, spine products, and surgical instrumentation. Depending on geography and portfolio alignment, facilities may encounter navigation-adjacent technologies in arthroplasty or spine ecosystems. As with all vendors, integration, service, and consumable supply chains vary by market. Contracting may involve complex regional structures.
Medtronic
Medtronic is a diversified medical technology company with significant presence in spine and neurosurgical enabling technologies in many regions. In orthopedic-adjacent areas such as spine instrumentation and related navigation, many hospitals evaluate its systems as part of broader surgical platform planning. Product availability and regulatory indications vary by country. Biomedical engineering teams often consider serviceability, software lifecycle, and OR integration needs during assessment.

Vendors, Suppliers, and Distributors

Orthopedic navigation is often purchased through direct manufacturer channels or authorized representatives, but broader procurement frequently involves vendors, suppliers, and distributors who support logistics, contracting, and service coordination.

Vendor vs. supplier vs. distributor (practical definitions)

A vendor is a business entity that sells products or services to the hospital (can be a manufacturer or a reseller).
A supplier is a broader term for any organization providing goods; it may include manufacturers, distributors, and service providers.
A distributor typically holds inventory, manages logistics, and delivers products locally, sometimes bundling basic technical support and training coordination.

For an Orthopedic navigation system, local distributors may be critical for:

timely spare parts,
loaner equipment,
on-site clinical support, and
navigating import/customs and regulatory requirements.

Top 5 World Best Vendors / Suppliers / Distributors

Example global distributors (not a ranking). Capabilities vary by country, and many Orthopedic navigation system purchases rely on regional specialty distributors rather than global generalists.

McKesson
McKesson is a large healthcare supply chain organization with broad distribution operations. Where it operates, it may support hospitals with procurement logistics, contract management, and delivery of a wide range of medical products. Capital equipment pathways vary, and navigation systems may still require direct manufacturer engagement. Large buyers often evaluate McKesson for supply reliability and inventory management support.
Cardinal Health
Cardinal Health is known for distribution and supply chain services, particularly in consumables and hospital operations categories. Depending on region, it may support procurement frameworks that simplify purchasing and replenishment. For complex clinical devices, hospitals typically coordinate closely with manufacturers for training and service, with distributors supporting logistics. The fit depends heavily on local presence.
Medline Industries
Medline provides a wide range of hospital supplies and has expanded distribution reach in multiple regions. Many facilities use Medline for standardization of consumables and perioperative products, which can indirectly support navigation programs by stabilizing OR supply workflows. For Orthopedic navigation system capital purchases, Medline’s role may be more supportive than primary, depending on the country. Service and technical support models vary by market.
Owens & Minor
Owens & Minor operates as a healthcare logistics and distribution provider in some regions, with services that can include supply chain optimization and product delivery. Hospitals may use such distributors to improve visibility into spend, inventory, and replenishment cycles. Navigation programs still require specialized clinical and technical support that is often manufacturer-led. Local availability differs significantly.
Henry Schein
Henry Schein is widely recognized in dental and medical distribution, including practice solutions and supply logistics. In some markets, it supports outpatient and clinic procurement more than large hospital capital projects, but buyer profiles vary. Where applicable, distributors like Henry Schein can help smaller facilities navigate sourcing and contracting. Hospitals should confirm whether navigation-related products are within the distributor’s supported categories in their region.

Global Market Snapshot by Country

The Orthopedic navigation system market is shaped by procedure volumes (arthroplasty, spine, trauma), surgeon training pathways, capital purchasing power, reimbursement structures, and the maturity of local service ecosystems. Below is a high-level snapshot focused on demand drivers and operational realities, without numerical market sizing.

India

Demand is largely driven by growing arthroplasty volumes in urban private hospitals, medical tourism hubs, and selected academic centers. Many facilities remain price-sensitive and may balance navigation investment against competing priorities like imaging, sterilization capacity, and ICU expansion. Import dependence is common, and service coverage may be strongest in major metros, with variable access in tier-2 and rural areas.

China

China combines large procedural demand with a rapidly evolving medtech landscape, including both imported and domestic options depending on category and hospital tier. Procurement frameworks and local policy priorities can strongly influence adoption, especially in public hospitals. Service ecosystems are generally stronger in major cities, while access and training may be less consistent in smaller regions.

United States

Adoption is supported by high procedure volumes, strong surgeon subspecialization, and broad availability of vendor training and service infrastructure. Hospital purchasing is often influenced by integrated delivery networks (IDNs), contracting frameworks, and a focus on documentation and standardization. Ambulatory surgery center growth can drive interest in efficient, repeatable workflows, but facilities still weigh setup time, staffing, and per-case costs.

Indonesia

In Indonesia, advanced orthopedic technology is concentrated in major urban centers and private hospital groups, with access challenges across an archipelago geography. Many Orthopedic navigation system deployments rely on import channels and local distributor capability for service and training. Procurement decisions often prioritize reliability, local support, and the ability to maintain systems with constrained technical staffing outside major cities.

Pakistan

Demand exists in high-volume tertiary and private centers, but adoption can be limited by capital constraints and uneven access to specialized training. Import dependence is common, making uptime sensitive to spare parts availability and distributor responsiveness. Service ecosystems tend to cluster in major cities, and facilities often prioritize solutions with straightforward setup and clear maintenance pathways.

Nigeria

In Nigeria, navigation systems are more likely to appear in well-resourced private hospitals and select teaching institutions, with broad access limitations elsewhere. Import dependence, variable power infrastructure, and limited local technical support can increase total cost of ownership beyond the purchase price. Facilities often focus on durable equipment, service guarantees, and training models that can handle staffing variability.

Brazil

Brazil has a substantial orthopedic care footprint spanning public and private sectors, with advanced technology more common in private hospitals and larger urban public centers. Import processes and regulatory pathways can influence timelines, while distributor networks play a major role in service and consumable continuity. Urban-rural disparities shape access, and hospitals often evaluate navigation alongside broader OR modernization plans.

Bangladesh

Adoption is typically concentrated in top private hospitals and academic centers in major cities, where surgical volumes and specialist availability support advanced technology. Many facilities remain import-dependent, and sustained use can hinge on service responsiveness and predictable consumable supply. Training and staffing consistency are important because navigation workflows can be disrupted by high turnover.

Russia

In Russia, demand exists in larger urban centers and specialized institutes, but market dynamics can be influenced by import restrictions, procurement policy, and availability of international service support. Facilities may pursue locally supported alternatives or hybrid service models when direct manufacturer support is limited. As in many large countries, access outside major cities can be constrained by logistics and workforce distribution.

Mexico

Mexico’s market reflects a mix of public and private investment, with navigation adoption often led by private hospitals and academic centers in large metropolitan areas. Proximity to North American supply chains can support access to technology, but service coverage and pricing vary by region. Hospitals commonly evaluate distributor capability and training programs as key success factors for sustained utilization.

Ethiopia

In Ethiopia, Orthopedic navigation system adoption is likely to be limited to major tertiary hospitals and selected private centers, with broader access constrained by infrastructure and budget priorities. Import dependence and limited local service capacity can create extended downtime risk. Programs that succeed often emphasize simplified workflows, robust training, and strong preventive maintenance planning.

Japan

Japan’s aging population and advanced surgical infrastructure support interest in technology-enabled orthopedic procedures, especially in high-capability centers. Quality expectations and structured training pathways can facilitate standardized adoption, though regulatory and procurement processes are typically rigorous. Service ecosystems are generally strong in urban areas, and facilities may prioritize integration, documentation, and long-term lifecycle support.

Philippines

Adoption in the Philippines is often centered in private tertiary hospitals and major urban regions, with variable access in provincial settings. Import dependence and distributor support strongly influence availability, training quality, and repair turnaround time. Hospitals may favor platforms with reliable local clinical support and clear sterile processing requirements that fit existing capacity.

Egypt

In Egypt, demand is driven by high urban patient volumes and expanding private healthcare investment, with advanced technology more concentrated in Cairo and other major cities. Import dependence and currency fluctuations can affect purchasing decisions and long-term consumable affordability. Sustained use often depends on local service teams, training continuity, and strong OR operational discipline.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Orthopedic navigation system access is typically very limited and concentrated where infrastructure, funding, and specialist staffing allow. Import logistics, maintenance capability, and power stability are major constraints, often outweighing clinical interest. Where advanced systems are used, they commonly require strong external support and simplified operational models.

Vietnam

Vietnam’s growing private hospital sector and expanding specialist capacity can support increased interest in advanced orthopedic technologies, particularly in major cities. Import dependence remains common, and procurement decisions often hinge on distributor reliability and training depth. Urban-rural access gaps persist, so navigation systems are more likely to be deployed in regional referral centers than in smaller hospitals.

Iran

Iran’s market dynamics are shaped by a mix of local capability and constraints related to international supply channels, which can affect access to certain technologies and spare parts. Adoption tends to be concentrated in major academic and tertiary centers with specialized surgeons and technical support. Facilities often prioritize maintainability, availability of consumables, and resilience of service arrangements.

Turkey

Turkey combines strong private hospital investment, medical tourism, and high-volume surgical centers that may adopt navigation as part of competitive OR modernization. Distributor networks and local technical expertise can be relatively mature in major cities, supporting uptime and training. Access outside urban hubs can be less consistent, making regional service coverage a key purchasing criterion.

Germany

Germany’s market is supported by a well-developed hospital sector, structured procurement processes, and strong emphasis on quality and documentation. Adoption is often driven by academic centers and high-volume orthopedic units, with careful evaluation of evidence, workflow impact, and lifecycle cost. Service ecosystems and biomedical engineering capabilities are generally strong, though implementation still requires multidisciplinary planning.

Thailand

Thailand’s private hospital growth and medical tourism sector can drive adoption of technology-enabled orthopedic care in major urban centers. Import dependence is common, and distributor support quality can significantly influence uptime and staff confidence. Rural access gaps remain, so navigation systems are typically concentrated in tertiary referral hospitals and private networks in large cities.

Key Takeaways and Practical Checklist for Orthopedic navigation system

Define whether your Orthopedic navigation system workflow is image-based or imageless before implementation.
Treat registration quality as the main determinant of navigation accuracy.
Build a standardized OR setup map to protect optical line-of-sight or EM tracking conditions.
Assign a trained navigation operator to reduce surgeon distraction and cognitive load.
Include navigation readiness in the surgical time-out and team briefing.
Verify laterality and procedure module selection before any registration step.
Confirm patient reference array fixation is mechanically secure and bump-resistant.
Re-check navigation accuracy after any suspected array movement or major repositioning.
Calibrate every tracked instrument you actually plan to use in the case.
Keep a documented fallback plan for conversion to non-navigation technique.
Do not proceed when navigation outputs cannot be independently verified.
Use alarms and warnings as stop-points for reassessment, not as background noise.
Standardize cable routing and cart placement to reduce trip and disconnect hazards.
Plan sterile draping so sensors, camera optics, and vents are not obstructed.
Ensure sterile processing can reprocess reusable trackers with validated cycles.
Separate cleaning workflows for non-sterile cart surfaces versus sterile field components.
Audit high-touch surfaces like touchscreens, keyboards, and foot pedals for cleaning compliance.
Track consumable usage and expiry to prevent last-minute case delays.
Require competency sign-off for surgeons and OR staff before independent operation.
Schedule periodic refresher training to address staff turnover and low-volume periods.
Coordinate biomedical engineering acceptance testing before first clinical use.
Align preventive maintenance intervals with clinical demand and manufacturer IFU.
Confirm spare parts strategy and repair turnaround expectations in the service contract.
Clarify software update governance and avoid unplanned updates immediately before cases.
Evaluate cybersecurity requirements if patient data or images are stored or exported.
Control USB and external media use according to hospital security policy.
Document unusual tracking behavior and capture error codes for technical triage.
Encourage near-miss reporting to improve setup, verification, and teamwork practices.
Verify marker cleanliness and integrity; damaged markers can degrade tracking reliability.
For optical systems, train staff to recognize and prevent line-of-sight occlusion patterns.
For EM systems, standardize metal object placement and field generator positioning.
Confirm compatibility between navigation software, implant libraries, and instrument sets.
Include sterile processing leadership in procurement decisions for reprocessing feasibility.
Consider OR throughput impact when scheduling early adoption cases.
Use checklists to reduce variability in calibration and registration steps.
Store trackers and sensitive components in protected cases to prevent damage in transit.
Ensure loaner sets follow the same cleaning, inspection, and traceability rules as owned sets.
Integrate navigation documentation outputs into quality improvement only when data integrity is assured.
Teach trainees that navigation numbers require clinical correlation and verification.
Avoid overreliance on any single display; cross-check with anatomy and established intraoperative checks.
Standardize who has authority to declare navigation unreliable and trigger conversion.
Review device incident trends in perioperative governance meetings for system-level fixes.
Plan procurement around total cost of ownership, including consumables, service, and training.
Require clear end-of-life and upgrade pathways to prevent stranded capital equipment.
Use multidisciplinary evaluation (surgery, nursing, biomed, IT, procurement) before purchase decisions.

If you are looking for contributions and suggestion for this content please drop an email to contact@myhospitalnow.com

Find Trusted Cardiac Hospitals

Compare heart hospitals by city and services — all in one place.

Explore Hospitals

Ready for a New You? Start with the Right Hospital.