ArticlePeerJ2024
Preoperative 3D printing planning technology combined with orthopedic surgical robot-assisted minimally invasive screw fixation for the treatment of pelvic fractures: a retrospective study.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How Can Technology Improve Acetabular and Pelvic Fractures Management in the Operating Room? A Systematic Review.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Influence of cephalomedullary nail length and caput-collum-diaphyseal angle on tip-apex distance and early mechanical cut-out in trochanteric femur fractures.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Clinical efficacy and biomechanical analysis of robotic internal fixation with percutaneous screws in the treatment of both-column acetabular fractures.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Clinical efficacy analysis of anterior superior iliac spine 3D-printed guide plate-assisted sacroiliac screw placement for the treatment of pelvic fractures.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the advantages and effectiveness of preoperative 3D printing planning technology combined with orthopedic surgical robot-assisted screw placement in the minimally invasive treatment of pelvic fractures compared to orthopedic surgical robot-assisted screw placement alone. Methods: A retrospective analysis of the clinical data of 29 patients with unstable pelvic fractures treated with orthopedic surgical robot-assisted percutaneous screw fixation from July 2021 to August 2023 was conducted. Among them, 13 patients who underwent preoperative 3D printing technology for screw planning were assigned to the experimental group, and the remaining 16 patients were assigned to the control group. All patients underwent screw fixation alone or combined with other fixation methods for fracture fixation. The application of preoperative 3D printing planning in orthopedic surgical robot operations was described. The intraoperative screw drawing time, invasive operation time, number of fluoroscopies during invasive operation, postoperative evaluation of screw accuracy, fracture healing, complications, and functional outcomes were recorded and compared between the two groups. Results: All patients successfully underwent surgery, with one patient in the control group experiencing numbness in the sciatic nerve innervation area. All patients were followed up for 4-15 months, with an average of 8 months, and all fractures achieved healing. The experimental group had a total of 26 screws inserted, while the control group had 30 screws. In the experimental group, the intraoperative screw drawing time was 3.0 (3.0, 3.37) min, significantly shorter than 4.0 (3.6, 4.0) min in the control group ( Conclusion: In the treatment of pelvic fractures using screw fixation, preoperative 3D printing technology planning combined with orthopedic surgical robots, compared to orthopedic surgical robot-assisted screw placement alone, can significantly reduce intraoperative screw drawing time, decrease drawing difficulty, enhance screw placement accuracy, and does not increase invasive operation time or the number of fluoroscopies. This approach makes the surgery safer and is a method worth applying.
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.