ArticleInternational orthopaedics2025
Robot-assisted closed reduction of femoral shaft fractures: a prospective controlled study.
Article in International orthopaedics, 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.
- Review
- Emerging Technologies for Assisted Fracture Reduction: A Systematic Review.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Toward autonomous robotic-assisted and microrobotic surgery.Science advances · 2026Review
- Emerging era of robotics and artificial intelligence in orthopaedic trauma surgery.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate and compare the effectiveness of an intelligent fracture reduction robotic system in assisting closed reduction and intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures with that of conventional fluoroscopy-assisted manual reduction and fixation.
methodsIn this prospective, non-randomized controlled study, 30 patients with newly diagnosed femoral shaft fractures were enrolled, with 15 cases in the experimental group (robot-assisted) and 15 cases in the control group (conventional). The experimental group utilized an orthopaedic surgical navigation system to assist in closed reduction and intramedullary nailing, while the control group underwent fluoroscopy-assisted manual reduction and fixation. The reduction time, total operation time, intraoperative fluoroscopy count, blood loss, and reduction error were compared between the two groups.
resultsBaseline characteristics were similar across both groups. The experimental group required significantly fewer intraoperative fluoroscopies (36.67 ± 25.41 vs. 117.26 ± 61.28, P < 0.001). Postoperative femoral length discrepancy (1.74 ± 1.37 mm) and anteversion difference (3.66 ± 3.37°) were significantly smaller in the experimental group compared to the control group (4.16 ± 2.67 mm, P = 0.004; 13.81 ± 9.58°, P = 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss was comparable between groups (experimental group: 207.33 ± 119.91 mL vs. control group: 240.00 ± 139.13 mL, P = 0.497). Reduction time was not statistically significant (experimental group: 74.27 ± 27.38 min vs. control group: 69.73 ± 34.10 min, P = 0.691).
conclusionsThe robot-assisted approach provided more precise fracture reduction, required fewer intraoperative X-ray fluoroscopies, and offered significant advantages over the conventional method for the minimally invasive treatment of femoral fractures.
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.