SynthesisOrthopaedic surgery2026
Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional Fluoroscopy-Guided Techniques in the Treatment of Scaphoid Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Orthopaedic surgery, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic-assisted technology has increasingly been applied in orthopedic surgery; however, its safety and efficacy in the treatment of scaphoid fractures remain controversial and lack high-level evidence. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare robotic-assisted techniques with conventional fluoroscopy-guided techniques in the treatment of scaphoid fractures.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, CNKI, VIP, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing robotic-assisted and conventional fluoroscopy-guided screw fixation for scaphoid fractures were included. Primary outcomes included operative time, fluoroscopy frequency, frequency of guidewire adjustments, intraoperative blood loss, fracture healing time, postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Mayo functional score, and complication rates. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.
resultsCompared with conventional fluoroscopy-guided techniques, robotic-assisted technology significantly reduced operative time, fluoroscopy frequency, frequency of guidewire adjustments, intraoperative blood loss, and fracture healing time (all p < 0.05). In addition, the Mayo functional score was significantly higher in the robotic-assisted group (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in postoperative VAS scores or complication rates (p > 0.05).
conclusionsRobotic-assisted technology demonstrates superior safety and efficacy compared with conventional fluoroscopy-guided techniques in the treatment of scaphoid fractures. It offers advantages in surgical efficiency, radiation reduction, fracture healing, and functional recovery, supporting its clinical application.
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.