Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38225839›Full record

ArticleZhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery2024

[Comparative study of orthopaedic robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for limb osteoid osteoma].

Junwei Feng, Weimin Liang, Yue Wang, Zhi Tang, MuFuSha A, Baoxiu Xu, Niezhenghao He, Peng Hao

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

8 authors.

Junwei FengSchool of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu Sichuan, 610054, P. R. Chnia.
Weimin LiangDepartment of Orthopedics, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences·Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Chengdu Sichuan, 610072, P. R. Chnia.
Yue WangDepartment of Orthopedics, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences·Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Chengdu Sichuan, 610072, P. R. Chnia.
Zhi TangDepartment of Orthopedics, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences·Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Chengdu Sichuan, 610072, P. R. Chnia.
MuFuSha ASchool of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu Sichuan, 610054, P. R. Chnia.
Baoxiu XuSchool of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu Sichuan, 610054, P. R. Chnia.
Niezhenghao HeSchool of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu Sichuan, 610054, P. R. Chnia.
Peng HaoDepartment of Orthopedics, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences·Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Chengdu Sichuan, 610072, P. R. Chnia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To compare the accuracy and effectiveness of orthopaedic robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for limb osteoid osteoma. Methods: A clinical data of 36 patients with limb osteoid osteomas admitted between June 2016 and June 2023 was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 16 patients underwent orthopaedic robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery (robot-assisted surgery group), and 20 patients underwent tumor resection after lotcated by C-arm X-ray fluoroscopy (open surgery group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the gender, age, lesion site, tumor nidus diameter, and preoperative pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores ( Results: Compared with the open surgery group, the robot-assisted surgery group had a longer operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, less fluoroscopy frequency, less postoperative analgesic use frequency, and higher lesion resection accuracy ( Conclusion: Compared with open surgery, robot-assisted resection of limb osteoid osteomas has longer operation time, but the accuracy of lesion resection improve, intraoperative blood loss reduce, and early postoperative pain is lighter. It has the advantages of precision and minimally invasive surgery.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsOrthopedicsOsteoma, OsteoidRoboticsAnalgesicsBlood Loss, SurgicalHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAnalgesicsearly effectivenessminimally invasive surgeryorthopaedic robotOsteoid osteoma

Identifiers

PMID38225839
PMCPMC10796222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.