Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35922521›Full record

ArticleInternational orthopaedics2023

Robot-assisted vs traditional percutaneous freehand for the scaphoid fracture treatment: a retrospective study.

Chengwei Xiao, Dan Wei, Zongdong Zhu, Hui Chen, Weijun Zhou, Xiaoming Tang, Jiabin Yuan, Yue Wang, Jiang Hu

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chengwei XiaoOrthopaedic 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.
Dan WeiOrthopaedic 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.
Zongdong ZhuOrthopaedic 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.
Hui ChenOrthopaedic 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.
Weijun ZhouOrthopaedic 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.
Xiaoming TangOrthopaedic 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.
Jiabin YuanOrthopaedic 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.
Yue WangOrthopaedic 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.
Jiang HuOrthopaedic 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.
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe 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.

methodsThis 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionRobot-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.

Indexed as

Fractures, BoneHand InjuriesRoboticsScaphoid BoneWrist InjuriesAdultFemaleFracture Fixation, InternalHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultCannulated screw fixationScaphoid fractureTiRobotTraditional percutaneous freehand

Identifiers

PMID35922521
PMCPMC9931861
OpenAlexW4289711028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.