A Comparison Between Robotic-Assisted Scaphoid Screw Fixation and a Freehand Technique for Acute Scaphoid Fracture: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: We compared robotic-assisted scaphoid screw fixation to conventional technique in terms of accuracy, surgical times, radiation exposure, and clinical outcomes, including range of motion, grip strength, functional score, and complications.

METHODS

This study was a registered, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. From May 2019 to December 2019, 1 surgeon performed 18 robotic-assisted and 18 conventional scaphoid screw fixations and these patients were eligible for participation in this study. Surgical time, including the time of the overall procedure, set-up time, and time for ideal guidewire placement, was recorded. The number of guidewire attempts also was recorded. All patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically at follow-up with respect to the severity of pain, wrist motion, grip strength, complications, and Mayo modified wrist score.

RESULTS

The average set-up time and overall time of the procedure were longer in the robotic-assisted than in the conventional groups, while the mean guidewire insertion time and the mean guidewire attempts was less in the robotic-assisted group than that of the conventional group. The overall radiation exposure was lower in the robotic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted technique provided a useful tool to improve implantation accuracy and shorten radiation exposure. Additional cost and prolonged duration of surgery without evidence of improved clinical scores may limit widespread acceptance of this technique.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic II.