SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2024
Robot-assisted versus traditional surgery in the treatment of intertrochanteric fractures: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances in internal fixation methods for intertrochanteric femoral fractures: A narrative review.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Intramedullary nail fixation of intertrochanteric fractures assisted by orthopedic surgical robot navigation is a new surgical method, but there are few studies comparing its efficacy with traditional intramedullary nail fixation. We aimed to assess whether robot-assisted internal fixation confers certain surgical advantages through a literature review. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wan fang Data Knowledge service Platform were searched to collect randomized and non-randomized studies on patients with calcaneal fractures. Five studies were identified to compare the clinical indexes. For the clinical indexes, the technology of robot-assisted is generally feasible, in time to operation, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, blood loss, pine insertion, tip apex distance (TAD), and Harris score (P < 0.05). However, on the complication and excellent and good rate after operation did not show good efficacy compared with the traditional group (P > 0.05). Based on the current evidence, For the short-term clinical index, the advantages of robot-assisted are clear. The long-term clinical effects of the two methods are also good, but the robot-assisted shows better. However, the quality of some studies is low, and more high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed for further verification.
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.