ArticleBMC surgery2026
Robot-assisted sacroiliac screw fixation for tile type C posterior pelvic ring injuries: a comparative study.
Article in BMC 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted versus conventional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous sacroiliac screw fixation for Tile type C posterior pelvic ring injuries.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 60 patients with Tile type C posterior pelvic ring injuries treated at our institution from January 2021 to December 2023. Patients were stratified into two groups based on surgical technique: a robot-assisted group (n = 31, TiRobot-assisted percutaneous sacroiliac screw fixation) and a conventional group (n = 29, C-arm fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous sacroiliac screw fixation). Group allocation reflected the surgical pathway available during the study period rather than randomisation. The following parameters were compared between groups: operative time, intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency, intraoperative blood loss, screw placement accuracy, number of guide-wire adjustments, fracture healing time, complications, and Majeed scores at final follow-up.
resultsAll patients completed 12-24 months of follow-up (mean 15.6 months). No significant difference in operative time was observed between the robot-assisted group (78.5 ± 15.2 min) and the conventional group (82.3 ± 18.6 min) (P > 0.05). The robot-assisted group demonstrated significantly fewer intraoperative fluoroscopy exposures (8.2 ± 2.1 vs. 18.6 ± 4.5, P < 0.001), fewer guide-wire adjustments (1.3 ± 0.6 vs. 4.2 ± 1.8, P < 0.001), and less intraoperative blood loss (45.2 ± 12.8 mL vs. 68.5 ± 18.3 mL, P < 0.001). The excellent-and-good screw placement rate was 97.96% (48/49) in the robot-assisted group versus 86.36% (38/44) in the conventional group (P = 0.042). No significant difference was found in fracture healing time. Majeed functional scores at final follow-up were higher in the robot-assisted group (85.6 ± 8.2) than in the conventional group (81.2 ± 9.5) (P = 0.049). No severe complications occurred in the robot-assisted group, whereas one case of L5 nerve-root irritation associated with screw malposition occurred in the conventional group.
conclusionFor Tile type C posterior pelvic ring injuries, robot-assisted percutaneous sacroiliac screw fixation was associated with higher screw placement accuracy, lower intraoperative radiation exposure, fewer guide-wire adjustments, reduced blood loss, and favourable early functional outcomes compared with conventional fluoroscopy-guided fixation. These findings, derived from a single-centre retrospective cohort, should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating and warrant confirmation in prospective multicentre studies.
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.