Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40240032›Full record

ArticleZhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery2025

[Effectiveness analysis of 5G remote robotic surgery in pelvic fracture treatment].

Yonghong Dai, Kuangyang Yang, Yanhui Zeng, Wei Han, Junqiang Wang

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
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, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Remote Telesurgery Versus Local Minimally Invasive Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Comparative Evidence Base.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
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

5 authors.

Yonghong DaiThe Eighth Clinical Medical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Foshan Guangdong, 528000, P. R. China.
Kuangyang YangThe Eighth Clinical Medical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Foshan Guangdong, 528000, P. R. China.
Yanhui ZengThe Eighth Clinical Medical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Foshan Guangdong, 528000, P. R. China.
Wei HanDepartment of Orthopedic Trauma, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100035, P. R. China.
Junqiang WangDepartment of Orthopedic Trauma, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100035, P. R. China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of 5G remote robotic surgery in the treatment of pelvic fractures. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 160 patients with pelvic fractures admitted between July 2023 and June 2024 who met the selection criteria. Among these patients, 80 underwent internal fixation surgery with the assistance of 5G remote robotic surgery (5G group), while 80 received local robotic surgical assistance (control group). Baseline characteristics, including gender, age, body mass index, disease duration, cause of injury, and fracture classification, were compared between the two groups, and no significant difference was found ( Results: In the 5G group, 180 screws were implanted during surgery, while 213 screws were implanted in the control group. The 5G group demonstrated significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss and shorter incision length compared to the control group ( Conclusion: Compared with the local surgery group, 5G remote robotic surgery supported by remote expert technical guidance demonstrated smaller incision lengths, less intraoperative blood loss, and fewer postoperative complications, and was shown to be a precise, minimally invasive, safe, and reliable surgical method.

Indexed as

Fracture Fixation, InternalFractures, BonePelvic BonesRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedBlood Loss, SurgicalBone ScrewsFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective Studies5G communication technologycollaborative diagnosis and treatmentpelvic fractureRemote surgeryTiRobot

Identifiers

PMID40240032
PMCPMC12011514

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.