The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu, China.
The First People's Hospital of Nantong, Nantong, Jiangsu, China.
J Robot Surg. 2024 Aug 28;18(1):329. doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-02086-3.
The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted (RA) percutaneous hollow screw fixation with traditional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for the treatment of calcaneal fractures through a systematic review and meta-analysis. An extensive search was conducted in the following databases-PubMed, CNKI, Embase, and the Cochrane Library-to gather research on patients with calcaneal fractures published up to July 2024. This search focuses on studies comparing the effectiveness of robot-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation versus ORIF. We will include studies published in both English and Chinese. Our screening process adhered strictly to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, emphasizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The ROBINS-I tool was utilized to evaluate the risk of bias in non-randomized studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4.1. The final analysis incorporated six retrospective cohort studies comprising 247 patients-122 treated with robotic-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation and 125 with conventional open reduction and internal fixation. The findings indicated that patients undergoing robotic-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation experienced advantages over those receiving conventional treatment in terms of reduced hospital stay, lower estimated blood loss, and higher AOFAS scores at both 3 and 6 months. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two methods concerning operative time, fracture healing duration, or the frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopies. Robotic-assisted percutaneous cannulated screw fixation is a safe and viable treatment approach for patients with calcaneal fractures. When compared to ORIF methods, this robotic-assisted technique demonstrated significant benefits, including reduced hospital stay, lower estimated blood loss, and improved AOFAS scores at both 3 and 6 months.
本研究旨在通过系统评价和荟萃分析比较机器人辅助（RA）经皮空心螺钉固定与传统切开复位内固定（ORIF）治疗跟骨骨折的疗效和安全性。我们在以下数据库中进行了广泛的搜索 - PubMed、CNKI、Embase 和 Cochrane Library，以收集截至 2024 年 7 月发表的跟骨骨折患者的研究。该搜索重点关注比较机器人辅助经皮空心螺钉固定与 ORIF 有效性的研究。我们将包括英文和中文发表的研究。我们的筛选过程严格遵循预先确定的纳入和排除标准，强调随机对照试验（RCT）和队列研究。使用 ROBINS-I 工具评估非随机研究的偏倚风险。使用 Review Manager 5.4.1 进行荟萃分析。最终分析纳入了六项回顾性队列研究，共 247 名患者-122 名接受机器人辅助经皮空心螺钉固定治疗，125 名接受传统切开复位内固定治疗。研究结果表明，与接受传统治疗的患者相比，接受机器人辅助经皮空心螺钉固定治疗的患者在住院时间、估计失血量和 AOFAS 评分方面具有优势，在 3 个月和 6 个月时均更高。两种方法在手术时间、骨折愈合时间或术中透视次数方面无统计学差异。机器人辅助经皮空心螺钉固定是治疗跟骨骨折患者的一种安全可行的治疗方法。与 ORIF 方法相比，这种机器人辅助技术具有显著优势，包括住院时间缩短、估计失血量减少以及在 3 个月和 6 个月时 AOFAS 评分提高。
