Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparative Study of Percutaneous Sacroiliac Screw with or without TiRobot Assistance for Treating Pelvic Posterior Ring Fractures
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparative Study of Percutaneous Sacroiliac Screw with or without TiRobot Assistance for Treating Pelvic Posterior Ring Fractures
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparative Study of Percutaneous Sacroiliac Screw with or without TiRobot Assistance for Treating Pelvic Posterior Ring Fractures
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparative Study of Percutaneous Sacroiliac Screw with or without TiRobot Assistance for Treating Pelvic Posterior Ring Fractures
2019
Overview
Objectives
To analyze the curative effect of TiRobot surgical robotic navigation and location system‐assisted percutaneous sacroiliac screw fixation and percutaneous sacroiliac screw by traditional fluoroscopy, and to summarize the safety and benefits of TiRobot.
Methods
A total of 91 patients with pelvic posterior ring fractures from December 2015 to February 2018 were included in this study. According to the surgical methods selected by the patients, the patients were divided into a TiRobot surgical robotic navigation and location system group (TiRobot group) and a percutaneous sacroiliac screw fixation group (traditional group). Statistical indicators included the number of sacroiliac screws, the time of planning the sacroiliac screw path, fluoroscopy frequency, fluoroscopy time, operation time, length of incision, blood loss, anesthesia time, the healing process of skin incisions, and fracture healing time. Fracture reduction was evaluated according to the maximum displacement degree at the inlet and outlet view X‐ray or CT. Matta standard was used to evaluate fracture reduction. At the last follow‐up, the Majeed function system was used to evaluate the function.
Results
All patients were followed up for 8 to 32 months. A total of 66 sacroiliac screws were implanted in the TiRobot group. A total of 43 sacroiliac screws were implanted in the traditional group. There were statistically significant differences in terms of fluoroscopy frequency, fluoroscopy time, operation time, incision length, anesthesia time, and blood loss between the two groups; the TiRobot group was superior to the traditional group. The healing time of the TiRobot group and the traditional group was 4.61 ± 0.68 months (range, 3.5–6.3 months) and 4.56 ± 0.78 months (range, 3.4–6.2 months), respectively, and there was no statistical difference. Postoperatively, by Matta standard, the overall excellent and good rate of fracture reduction was 89.28% and 88.57%, respectively. At the last follow‐up, by Majeed function score, the overall excellent and good rate was 91.07% and 91.43%. There was no statistical difference between the two groups.
Conclusion
Sacroiliac screw implantation assisted by TiRobot to treat the posterior pelvic ring fractures has the characteristics of less trauma, shorter operation time, and less blood loss. TiRobot has the characteristics of high safety and accuracy and has great clinical application value.
