ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2023
Treatment of Unstable Sacral Fractures with Robotically-aided Minimally Invasive Triangular Fixation.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robot-assisted percutaneous pelvic channel screw placement for unstable pelvic ring injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis with narrative technical comparison of multi-platform differences.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Comprehensive clinical outcomes of TiRobot-assisted minimally invasive surgery for pelvic fractures: a meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Percutaneous fixation of posterior pelvic ring lesions in the elderly: current evidence and recent advances.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Review
- Unilateral Lumbo-Pelvic Fixation for Denis Type I Unilateral Sacral Fracture: A Finite Element Analysis.JOR spine · 2025Article
- Treatment of Type IV Fragility Fractures of Pelvis With Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Triangular Fixation.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Traumatic lumbosacral instability: part 2-indications and techniques for surgical management.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Review
- Robot-assisted Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Osteoid Osteomas.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe treatment of unstable sacral fractures is huge challenge to surgeons. Robotically-aided minimally invasive triangular fixation (RoboTFX) is the most advanced technique up to now. This study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes of unstable sacral fractures treated with RoboTFX.
methodsFrom March 2017 to October 2021, 48 consecutive patients with unstable sacral fractures were included in the study. All patients received surgical treatment with triangular fixation (TFX). Patients were divided into four groups according to the number of fractures (uni- or bilateral) and surgical method employed (RoboTFX or traditional open TFX). Between these four groups, clinical data on operation time, intraoperative bleeding, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, infection rate, fracture healing rates, insertion accuracy, Majeed pelvic outcome score, Mears' criterion, and Gibbons score were compared. Quantitative data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and compared using Student's t-test. Categorical variable were compared using the Pearson's χ
resultsComparing unilateral RoboTFX versus open TFX, neither fracture healing rate, infection rate, Majeed pelvic outcome score, Mears' radiological evaluation criterion, nor Gibbons score of the two groups were statistically significantly different (p > 0.05). However, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, and insertion accuracy in the RoboTFX group were all significantly better than those of the traditional open group (p < 0.05). Likewise, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, and accuracy of fixation insertion of the bilateral RoboTFX group were significantly better than those of the bilateral open group (p < 0.05). Meanwhile infection rate, fracture healing rate, Majeed score, Mears' criterion, and Gibbons score of two groups were not significantly different (p > 0.05).
conclusionRoboTFX has the advantages of less operation time, less intraoperative bleeding and fluoroscopy, more accurate fixation insertion, and a higher healing rate compared to traditional open methods in the treatment of unstable sacral fractures. However, RoboTFX requires a few critical considerations, and the indications of its operation should be strictly evaluated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.