Chengwei Xiao1,2, Dan Wei1,2, Zongdong Zhu1,2, Hui Chen1,2, Weijun Zhou1,2, Xiaoming Tang1,2, Jiabin Yuan1,2, Yue Wang1,2, Jiang Hu3,4. 1. Orthopaedic Department, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, 32# W. Sec 2, 1st Ring Rd, Qingyang District, Chengdu, 610072, China. 2. Chinese Academy of Sciences Sichuan Translational Medicine Research Hospital, Chengdu, 610072, China. 3. Orthopaedic Department, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, 32# W. Sec 2, 1st Ring Rd, Qingyang District, Chengdu, 610072, China. xiaochengwei@med.uestc.edu.cn. 4. Chinese Academy of Sciences Sichuan Translational Medicine Research Hospital, Chengdu, 610072, China. xiaochengwei@med.uestc.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficiency, safety, and accuracy of cannulated screw fixation using a robot-assisted method compared with a traditional percutaneous freehand method. METHODS: This retrospective clinical study included 18 patients with scaphoid fracture who underwent cannulated screw fixation by robot-assisted technique or traditional percutaneous freehand technique from June 2018 to June 2020. All patients were divided into the robot-assisted group (9 patients) or the traditional surgery group (9 patients). The operation time, blood loss, number of intra-operative fluoroscopies, fracture healing time, Mayo wrist function score, and screw implantation accuracy were recorded in the two groups. RESULTS: The average age of the robot-assisted group was 37.9 ± 10.6 years (with a range of 30 to 52 years), there were eight males and one female, and there were six cases of scaphoid fracture on the right side and three on the left side. The average pre-operative time was 2.8 ± 0.7 days (ranging from 1 to 3 days). The average age of the traditional surgery group was 31.6 ± 6.8 years (with a range of 20 to 45 years), there were eight males and one female, and there were five cases of scaphoid fracture on the right side and four on the left side. The average pre-operative time was 2.1 ± 0.8 days (with a range of 2 to 4 days). The number of intra-operative fluoroscopies was 24.4 ± 3.5 in the traditional surgery group, whereas it was only 10.1 ± 1.9 in the robot-assisted group, which was significantly lower (P < 0.05). The average operation time of the traditional operation group was 48.4 ± 12.2 min, and that of the robot-assisted group was 32.6 ± 4.2 minutes, which was significantly shorter (P < 0.05). The angles between the actual screw position and the central axis of the scaphoid on both the coronal and sagittal post-operative CT images were 8.3° ± 2.3° and 8.8° ± 1.6° for the traditional operation group and 3.8° ± 0.8° and 4.3° ± 1.2° for the robot-assisted group, so the accuracy of the robot-assisted group was significantly higher (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in wrist function recovery or fracture healing time. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted treatment of scaphoid fracture is more accurate than traditional freehand technology, with shorter operation time and fewer intra-operative fluoroscopies. There is no difference between the two surgical techniques in intra-operative bleeding, post-operative fracture healing, or functional recovery. Robot-assisted surgery is a safe, effective, and accurate method for treating scaphoid fracture.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficiency, safety, and accuracy of cannulated screw fixation using a robot-assisted method compared with a traditional percutaneous freehand method. METHODS: This retrospective clinical study included 18 patients with scaphoid fracture who underwent cannulated screw fixation by robot-assisted technique or traditional percutaneous freehand technique from June 2018 to June 2020. All patients were divided into the robot-assisted group (9 patients) or the traditional surgery group (9 patients). The operation time, blood loss, number of intra-operative fluoroscopies, fracture healing time, Mayo wrist function score, and screw implantation accuracy were recorded in the two groups. RESULTS: The average age of the robot-assisted group was 37.9 ± 10.6 years (with a range of 30 to 52 years), there were eight males and one female, and there were six cases of scaphoid fracture on the right side and three on the left side. The average pre-operative time was 2.8 ± 0.7 days (ranging from 1 to 3 days). The average age of the traditional surgery group was 31.6 ± 6.8 years (with a range of 20 to 45 years), there were eight males and one female, and there were five cases of scaphoid fracture on the right side and four on the left side. The average pre-operative time was 2.1 ± 0.8 days (with a range of 2 to 4 days). The number of intra-operative fluoroscopies was 24.4 ± 3.5 in the traditional surgery group, whereas it was only 10.1 ± 1.9 in the robot-assisted group, which was significantly lower (P < 0.05). The average operation time of the traditional operation group was 48.4 ± 12.2 min, and that of the robot-assisted group was 32.6 ± 4.2 minutes, which was significantly shorter (P < 0.05). The angles between the actual screw position and the central axis of the scaphoid on both the coronal and sagittal post-operative CT images were 8.3° ± 2.3° and 8.8° ± 1.6° for the traditional operation group and 3.8° ± 0.8° and 4.3° ± 1.2° for the robot-assisted group, so the accuracy of the robot-assisted group was significantly higher (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two groups in wrist function recovery or fracture healing time. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted treatment of scaphoid fracture is more accurate than traditional freehand technology, with shorter operation time and fewer intra-operative fluoroscopies. There is no difference between the two surgical techniques in intra-operative bleeding, post-operative fracture healing, or functional recovery. Robot-assisted surgery is a safe, effective, and accurate method for treating scaphoid fracture.
Authors: M Hoffmann; O D Reinsch; J P Petersen; M Schröder; M Priemel; A S Spiro; J M Rueger; S Yarar Journal: Int J Med Robot Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 2.547
Authors: Andrew D Duckworth; Paul J Jenkins; Stuart A Aitken; Nicholas D Clement; Charles M Court-Brown; Margaret M McQueen Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: Annelie Martina Weinberg; Wolfgang Pichler; Stephan Grechenig; Norbert Peter Tesch; Nima Heidari; Wolfgang Grechenig Journal: Injury Date: 2009-04-19 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Jung Il Lee; Yong Seuk Lee; Sung Bum Cho; Im Joo Rhyu; Jung Ho Park; Jong Woo Kang; Woo Joo Jeon; Jong Woong Park Journal: J Trauma Date: 2010-03