ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2025
Treatment of Type IV Fragility Fractures of Pelvis With Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Triangular Fixation.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Emerging Technologies for Assisted Fracture Reduction: A Systematic Review.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- 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
- [Robotically assisted and minimally invasive pedicle screw placement at the lumbar spine].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- [Robotically assisted placement of a pubic ramus screw and an SI-S1 screw].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveType IV fragility fractures of pelvis (FFP IV) are serious and complicated and the treatment is challengeable. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive triangular fixation (RoboTFX) is a new and advanced technique to treat this injury. The objective of this report is to evaluate the clinical outcomes of FFP IV treated with RoboTFX.
methodsFrom March 2017 to December 2022, 22 consecutive patients with FFP IV were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical method employed (RoboTFX or robotic-assisted minimally invasive iliosacral screws, RoboISS). Between two groups, we compared clinical data on operation time, intraoperative bleeding, intraoperative fluoroscopy time, favorable fracture healing rate, implant loosening rate, and Majeed pelvic outcome score.
resultsAll operations were undertaken from 3 to 15 days (average 5.7 ± 1.7 days) following primary injuries. All patients were followed up continuously 15 months. The average surgical time was 125.3 ± 15.5 (55-190) min in group RoboTFX, 137.1 ± 17.2 min in group RoboISS (p > 0.05). The average amount of intraoperative bleeding was 320.4 ± 25.2 (50-550) mL in group RoboTFX, 302.4 ± 21.5 (50-500) mL in Group 2 (p > 0.05). The average intraoperative fluoroscopy time of the two groups was 23.3 ± 4.5 (15-35) s in group RoboTFX and 40.3 ± 3.8 (10-75) s in group RoboISS (p < 0.05). No patients experienced loss of reduction, 5 of 40 screws had implant loosening in group RoboTFX, meanwhile 13 of 48 screws had implant loosening in Group 2. Four of 20 vertical sacral fractures were healed undesirable including 2 nonunion and the favorable healing rate of 80% in group RoboTFX, meanwhile 8 of 24 fractures were undesirable including 4 nonunion and the favorable healing rate was 66.7% in group RoboISS. Implant loosening rate in the RoboTFX group were all significantly better than those of the RoboISS group (p < 0.05). There were no occurrences of wound infection in both groups, and Majeed scores for the last follow-up were 76.2 ± 3.4 in group RoboTFX and 74.2 ± 2.7 in group RoboISS (p > 0.05).
conclusionRoboTFX has the advantages of less intraoperative fluoroscopy and implant loosening rate compared to RoboISS which is better than other methods. We thus recommend RoboTFX as an effective option for treating FFP IV. However, 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.