ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of robot assisted internal fixation and traditional open reduction and internal fixation for calcaneal fractures.MethodsThe clinical data of 44 patients (44 feets) with calcaneal fracture admitted between October 2017 and December 2018 who met the selection criteria were retrospectively analyzed. According to different operation methods, they were divided into trial group (19 cases, treated with robot assisted percutaneous reduction and cannulated screw fixation through tarsal sinus incision) and control group (25 cases, treated with open reduction and internal fixation via traditional tarsal sinus incision). There was no significant difference in gender, age, injured side, cause of injury, fracture type, time from injury to operation, and preoperative Böhler angle, Gissane angle, calcaneus width, American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Association (AOFAS) score, and other general data between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency, and fracture healing time were recorded and compared between the two groups. Before operation and at 6 months after operation, the Böhler angle and Gissane angle were measured on the lateral X-ray film, and the calcaneal width was measured on the axial X-ray film of the calcaneus to evaluate the recovery of the deformity and collapse after surgical treatment; the AOFAS score was used to evaluate the function of the affected foot and ankle joint.ResultsThe operation time of the trial group was significantly longer than that of the control group (P<0.05), but the intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency was significantly less than that of the control group (P<0.05). In the control group, 1 case had skin necrosis, and 1 case had a little leakage from the incision; the rest of the two groups had no skin- and incision-related complications. Patients in both groups were followed up 6-12 months, with an average of 9.5 months. At 6 months after operation, the Böhler angle, Gissane angle, and calcaneal width in the two groups were significantly improved when compared with preoperative ones (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05); the fractures in the two groups were healed, there was no significant difference in healing time (t=–1.890, P=0.066); the AOFAS scores of the two groups were significantly higher than those before operation (P<0.05), and the AOFAS score of the trial group was significantly higher than that of the control group (t=–3.135, P=0.003).ConclusionCompared with traditional C-arm fluoroscopic internal fixation for calcaneal fractures, robot-assisted internal fixation via tarsal sinus incision for calcaneal fractures significantly improves the function of the affected foot and maintains the accuracy of nail implantation after fracture reduction, reducing intraoperative fluoroscopy times, and the fracture heals well.
ObjectiveTo compare the safety and accuracy of pedicle screw placement assisted by robot system with freehand pedicle screw placement in upper thoracic surgery.MethodsBetween December 2017 and December 2019, 39 cases with upper thoracic pedicle screw internal fixation were included in the study, including 19 cases in robot group (group A, robot assisted pedicle screw placement) and 20 cases in freehand group (group B, freehand pedicle screw placement). There were 104 screws implanted in group A and 108 screws in group B. There was no significant difference in age, gender composition, body mass index, disease type, number of screws implanted, and segmental distribution between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative drainage were recorded and compared between the two groups. CT scan was performed in all patients at 2 days after operation to evaluate the screw accuracy based on the Gertzbein-Robbins grading standard.ResultsThe operation time of group A was significantly longer than that in group B (t=2.759, P=0.009). There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage between the two groups (t=−0.796, P=0.431; t=−0.814, P=0.421). At 2 days after operation, according to Gertzbein-Robbins grading standard, the accuracy of pedicle screw implantation in group A were grade A in 94 screws, grade B in 9 screws, and grade C in 1 screw; and in group B were grade A in 72 screws, grade B in 26 screws, grade C in 9 screws, and grade D in 1 screw; the difference between the two groups was significant (Z=4.257, P=0.000). The accuracy rate of group A was 99.04%, and that of group B was 90.74%, showing significant difference (χ2=7.415, P=0.006).ConclusionCompared with traditional freehand pedicle screw placement, robot-assisted pedicle screw placement significantly improves the accuracy and safety of screw placement without increasing the bleeding and postoperative drainage.
Objective To compare the accuracy and effectiveness of orthopaedic robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for limb osteoid osteoma. Methods A clinical data of 36 patients with limb osteoid osteomas admitted between June 2016 and June 2023 was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 16 patients underwent orthopaedic robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery (robot-assisted surgery group), and 20 patients underwent tumor resection after lotcated by C-arm X-ray fluoroscopy (open surgery group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the gender, age, lesion site, tumor nidus diameter, and preoperative pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (P>0.05). The operation time, lesion resection time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency, lesion resection accuracy, and postoperative analgesic use frequency were recorded and compared between the two groups. The VAS scores for pain severity were compared preoperatively and at 3 days and 3 months postoperatively.Results Compared with the open surgery group, the robot-assisted surgery group had a longer operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, less fluoroscopy frequency, less postoperative analgesic use frequency, and higher lesion resection accuracy (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in lesion resection time (P>0.05). All patients were followed up after surgery, with a follow-up period of 3-24 months (median, 12 months) in the two groups. No postoperative complication such as wound infection or fracture occurred in either group during follow-up. No tumor recurrence was observed during follow-up. The VAS scores significantly improved in both groups at 3 days and 3 months after surgery when compared with preoperative value (P<0.05). The VAS score at 3 days after surgery was significantly lower in robot-assisted surgery group than that in open surgery group (P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in VAS scores at 3 months between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Compared with open surgery, robot-assisted resection of limb osteoid osteomas has longer operation time, but the accuracy of lesion resection improve, intraoperative blood loss reduce, and early postoperative pain is lighter. It has the advantages of precision and minimally invasive surgery.