Orthopaedic surgery · 2026
Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Robot-Assisted Versus Conventional Fluoroscopy-Guided Techniques in the Treatment of Scaphoid Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yuan Zhifa, Shen Guohang, Liu Xunqi, Gao Zhenguo, Wang Kaiyong, Chen Yang, Wang Ruoyan, Dai Yupei
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted technology has increasingly been applied in orthopedic surgery; however, its safety and efficacy in the treatment of scaphoid fractures remain controversial and lack high-level evidence. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare robotic-assisted techniques with conventional fluoroscopy-guided techniques in the treatment of scaphoid fractures.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, CNKI, VIP, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing robotic-assisted and conventional fluoroscopy-guided screw fixation for scaphoid fractures were included. Primary outcomes included operative time, fluoroscopy frequency, frequency of guidewire adjustments, intraoperative blood loss, fracture healing time, postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Mayo functional score, and complication rates. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.
RESULTS: Compared with conventional fluoroscopy-guided techniques, robotic-assisted technology significantly reduced operative time, fluoroscopy frequency, frequency of guidewire adjustments, intraoperative blood loss, and fracture healing time (all p < 0.05). In addition, the Mayo functional score was significantly higher in the robotic-assisted group (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in postoperative VAS scores or complication rates (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted technology demonstrates superior safety and efficacy compared with conventional fluoroscopy-guided techniques in the treatment of scaphoid fractures. It offers advantages in surgical efficiency, radiation reduction, fracture healing, and functional recovery, supporting its clinical application.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, CNKI, VIP, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing robotic-assisted and conventional fluoroscopy-guided screw fixation for scaphoid fractures were included. Primary outcomes included operative time, fluoroscopy frequency, frequency of guidewire adjustments, intraoperative blood loss, fracture healing time, postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Mayo functional score, and complication rates. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.
RESULTS: Compared with conventional fluoroscopy-guided techniques, robotic-assisted technology significantly reduced operative time, fluoroscopy frequency, frequency of guidewire adjustments, intraoperative blood loss, and fracture healing time (all p < 0.05). In addition, the Mayo functional score was significantly higher in the robotic-assisted group (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in postoperative VAS scores or complication rates (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted technology demonstrates superior safety and efficacy compared with conventional fluoroscopy-guided techniques in the treatment of scaphoid fractures. It offers advantages in surgical efficiency, radiation reduction, fracture healing, and functional recovery, supporting its clinical application.