Qi Xiangyu, Zhang Xu, Zhang Qing, Zhang Yazhong, Huang Shaolong, Lv Yongxiang, Li Wenbo, Wang Jun Qiang, Zhu Ziqiang
Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, 221000, China.
Graduate school of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, 221000, Jiangsu, China.
Sci Rep. 2025 Jul 2;15(1):22908. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-06168-6.
Both-column fractures of the acetabulum represent a particularly complex category of injury, with a high proportion necessitating surgical intervention. The most common surgical method is open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), but this has problems like blood loss, long operations, and trauma after surgery. Robot-assisted percutaneous screw fixation is a minimally invasive treatment for both-column acetabular fractures. It has several clinical advantages, including precise screw positioning and stable performance. A comparison of the clinical efficacy of open reduction and internal fixation and robot-assisted percutaneous screws in the treatment of both-column acetabular fractures and biomechanical analyses were performed to compare the stability of the two fixation methods. Firstly, A finite element model was constructed for the purposes of analyzing both-column acetabular fractures, percutaneous screws, and reconstruction plates. Divided into four experimental groups: Group I: Acetabular anterior and posterior columns are screwed with a 6.5 mm percutaneous screw. Group II: The anterior column of the acetabulum is fixed with a 6.5 mm percutaneous screw, while the posterior column is fixed with a 7.3 mm percutaneous screw. Group III: Acetabular anterior and posterior columns are screwed with a 7.3 mm percutaneous screw. Group IV: Acetabular anterior and posterior columns are fixed with a 6-hole reconstruction plate. Each fracture group was tested under axial loads of 600 N to measure the hipbone's displacement, Von Mises stress (VMS), and its internal fixation components. Secondly, 36 patients with both-column acetabular fractures admitted from September 2020 to September 2023 were retrospectively analyzed; 19 of them in the ORIF group, and 17 of them in the robot-assisted group. A comparison of the operative time, duration of intraoperative fluoroscopy, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, Matta's radiological criteria, and Harris Hip Score (HHS) in two groups of patients. In terms of finite element analysis, the maximum VMS was observed for internal fixation in group II, and the minimum VMS was observed in group IV. The displacements of groups I, II, and III internal fixation were the same (approximately 1.00 mm), and the minimum internal fixation displacement was observed in group IV. The mean operating time in the ORIF group was 190.45 ± 25.40 min, the incision length was 20.56 ± 3.38 centimeters, the intraoperative bleeding was 958.73 ± 128.68 ml, and the fluoroscopy time was 55.18 ± 10.25 s. The mean operating time in the robotic group was 99.7 ± 18.8 min, with an incision length of 7.35 ± 0.56 cm, intraoperative bleeding of 50.00 ± 15.20 ml, and fluoroscopy time of 22.52 ± 14.50 s. There was a significant difference between the above data (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in Matta's radiological criteria between the two groups. HHS at three months postoperatively and six months postoperatively were 77.81 ± 2.23 and 84.78 ± 4.65 in the ORIF group, and at three months postoperatively and six months postoperatively in the robotic group were 72.19 ± 1.85 and 82.28 ± 3.32. The use of robot-assisted percutaneous screw internal fixation for both-column acetabular fractures has been demonstrated to have similar fixed strength and therapeutic effect to that of ORIF plate fixation. In contrast, robot-assisted percutaneous screw therapy offers the advantages of minimal invasiveness and precision, thereby providing a novel therapeutic option for the clinical treatment of both-column acetabular fractures.
髋臼双柱骨折是一类特别复杂的损伤,其中很大一部分需要进行手术干预。最常见的手术方法是切开复位内固定术(ORIF),但该方法存在失血、手术时间长和术后创伤等问题。机器人辅助经皮螺钉固定是治疗髋臼双柱骨折的一种微创治疗方法。它具有几个临床优势,包括螺钉定位精确和性能稳定。对切开复位内固定术和机器人辅助经皮螺钉治疗髋臼双柱骨折的临床疗效进行比较,并进行生物力学分析,以比较两种固定方法的稳定性。首先,构建有限元模型,用于分析髋臼双柱骨折、经皮螺钉和重建钢板。分为四个实验组:第一组:髋臼前后柱用6.5毫米经皮螺钉固定。第二组:髋臼前柱用6.5毫米经皮螺钉固定,而后柱用7.3毫米经皮螺钉固定。第三组:髋臼前后柱用7.3毫米经皮螺钉固定。第四组:髋臼前后柱用6孔重建钢板固定。对每个骨折组在600牛的轴向载荷下进行测试,以测量髋骨的位移、冯·米塞斯应力(VMS)及其内固定部件。其次,回顾性分析2020年9月至2023年9月收治的36例髋臼双柱骨折患者;其中19例在切开复位内固定术组,17例在机器人辅助组。比较两组患者的手术时间、术中透视时间、术中出血量、切口长度、马塔放射学标准和Harris髋关节评分(HHS)。在有限元分析方面,第二组内固定的VMS最大值,第四组的VMS最小值。第一组、第二组和第三组内固定的位移相同(约1.00毫米),第四组内固定位移最小。切开复位内固定术组的平均手术时间为190.45±25.40分钟,切口长度为20.56±3.38厘米,术中出血为958.73±128.68毫升,透视时间为55.18±10.25秒。机器人组的平均手术时间为99.7±18.8分钟,切口长度为7.35±0.56厘米,术中出血为50.00±15.20毫升,透视时间为22.52±14.50秒。上述数据之间存在显著差异(P<0.001)。两组在马塔放射学标准方面无显著差异。切开复位内固定术组术后三个月和六个月的HHS分别为77.81±2.23和84.78±4.65,机器人组术后三个月和六个月的HHS分别为72.19±1.85和82.28±3.32。已证明机器人辅助经皮螺钉内固定治疗髋臼双柱骨折具有与切开复位内固定术钢板固定相似的固定强度和治疗效果。相比之下,机器人辅助经皮螺钉治疗具有微创和精确的优势,从而为髋臼双柱骨折的临床治疗提供了一种新的治疗选择。