SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robot-assisted scaphoid screw fixation versus free-hand technique for scaphoid fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis and systematic review set out to compare the results of robot-assisted scaphoid screw fixation to those of more conventional, manual methods of fixing scaphoid fractures. The studies pertaining to scaphoid fractures published from database inception to January 2024 were culled from PubMed, CNKI, Embase, and the Cochrane Library’s extensive database. Included studies compared conventional surgical procedures with robot-xassisted scaphoid screw fixation. Both English and Chinese versions of these articles were taken into consideration. The selection process followed recognized inclusion and exclusion criteria, with a focus on randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. We performed the meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.4.1. To assess bias in non-randomized controlled studies, we used the ROBINS-I tool. The final analysis consisted of five retrospective cohort studies and one RCT, with a total of 250 patients. Among these, 118 patients received robot-assisted scaphoid screw fixation, while 132 underwent conventional free-hand surgery. All procedures were performed percutaneously. The results demonstrated that robot-assisted scaphoid screw fixation outperformed conventional surgery in multiple areas, such as fracture healing time, Mayo wrist score, estimated blood loss, frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy sessions, and the number of guide wire adjustments. No significant difference in VAS score and operative time was observed between the two techniques. Robot-assisted surgery for scaphoid fractures offers several advantages over traditional free-hand techniques. It enhances safety, supports better postoperative recovery, reduces the frequency of fluoroscopy for both doctors and patients and minimizes estimated blood loss. Additionally, it significantly improves long-term wrist function in patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41931267What 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.