ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Robot-assisted closed reduction and navigated fixation for pelvic ring injuries: a focused narrative review of a reduction-fixation-audit framework.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Pelvic ring injuries combine three-dimensional deformity with narrow osseous corridors and proximity to neurovascular structures. Minimally invasive fixation can reduce exposure-related morbidity, but its success remains constrained by the quality of reduction achieved before fixation. This focused narrative review examined CT-based phenotyping and planning, mirror-template reconstruction, robot-assisted fracture reduction (RAFR), navigated percutaneous fixation, and postoperative audit. English- and Chinese-language literature was identified by targeted searches from database inception to May 31, 2026. Evidence was synthesized by study design and maturity; no pooled effect estimate or formal risk-of-bias score was undertaken. The published RAFR literature consists predominantly of model validation, a first-in-human report, small single-center series, and one non-randomized comparison. These studies demonstrate technical feasibility and early radiographic acceptability in selected fresh unstable pelvic ring injuries. A 2024 series extends direct but still preliminary evidence to displaced fragility fractures. Recruitment centers, investigators, and enrollment periods overlap across several reports, so cohort independence cannot be assumed. Reported reductions in blood loss, incision length, radiation exposure, or early functional scores should therefore be treated as associations rather than proof of comparative effectiveness. Long-term safety, durable function, learning curve, multicenter reproducibility, and cost-effectiveness remain unestablished. The main contribution of this review is a surgeon-in-the-loop reduction-fixation-audit framework that separates four endpoints: technical feasibility, radiographic reduction, clinical effectiveness, and safety. It also proposes candidate reporting domains and distinguishes evidence-informed early-use scenarios from investigational applications. Force-controlled stress testing for equivocal instability remains a research hypothesis, not an established indication.
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.