ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Case Report: Robot-assisted sacral fracture reduction with patient-specific finite element planning.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sacral fractures are typically caused by high-energy trauma. They often disrupt the pelvic ring and pose complex anatomical challenges, as the sacrum is surrounded by critical structures-including blood vessels, nerves, and internal organs. Traditional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) can restore anatomical alignment but requires extensive tissue exposure. This exposure leads to greater tissue trauma, prolonged recovery, and higher risks of infection, hemorrhage, or nerve damage. For these reasons, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is preferred. However, MIS demands high technical precision. Robot-assisted fracture reduction (RAFR) systems enhance precision in minimally invasive procedures, while finite element analysis (FEA) optimizes preoperative planning by simulating biomechanics. However, clinical evidence for combining these techniques in complex, multi-injury cases is limited. Case presentation: A 19-year-old female was admitted to the hospital following high-energy trauma (a fall from height), diagnosed with unstable pelvic fracture (AO C1.3 type), longitudinal sacral fracture (Denis II type with vertical displacement), and multiple concurrent injuries (thoracolumbar fractures, rib fracture, pulmonary contusion, splenic and renal contusions, lumbosacral plexus injury). Preoperative management included supracondylar femoral traction and vital sign stabilization. Preoperative FEA based on the patient's CT data simulated three internal fixation schemes, showing comparable vertical stability; S1 standard + S2 extended sacroiliac screws were selected to preserve lumbar mobility. The RAFR system was used for surgery: 3D preoperative planning, automatic path design, and intraoperative real-time tracking. Fixation was performed with the selected screws (posterior ring) and an anterior external fixator. Conclusion: This case illustrates the value of combining FEA and RAFR in treating complex sacral fractures with multiple traumas. It highlights that FEA provides a scientific basis for personalized fixation strategy selection, while RAFR achieves precise, minimally invasive reduction, offering a feasible pathway for personalized, minimally invasive management.
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.