[TiRobot-assisted minimally invasive treatment of coracoid process fractures of scapula].

Yonghong Dai, Qingyu Li, Yanhui Zeng, Zhengjie Wu, Chunpeng Zhao, Junqiang Wang
{"title":"[TiRobot-assisted minimally invasive treatment of coracoid process fractures of scapula].","authors":"Yonghong Dai, Qingyu Li, Yanhui Zeng, Zhengjie Wu, Chunpeng Zhao, Junqiang Wang","doi":"10.7507/1002-1892.202409072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore effectiveness of TiRobot-assisted screw implantation in the treatment of coracoid process fractures of the scapula.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data from 24 patients with coracoid process fractures of the scapula admitted between September 2019 and January 2024 and met selection criteria. Among them, 12 patients underwent TiRobot-assisted screw implantation (robot group) and 12 underwent manual screw implantation (control group) during internal fixation. There was no significant difference ( <i>P</i>>0.05) in baseline data such as gender, age, body mass index, disease duration, cause of injury, coracoid process fracture classification, and proportion of patients with associated injuries between the two groups. The incision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, accuracy of screw placement, coracoid process fracture healing time, and complications were recorded and compared, as well as pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and Constant-Murley score at last follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The intraoperative blood loss and incision length in the robot group were significantly lower than those in the control group ( <i>P</i><0.05); however, there was no significant difference in operation time and hospital stay between the two groups ( <i>P</i>>0.05). All patients were followed up 8-27 months (mean, 17.5 months), and the difference in follow-up time between the two groups was not significant ( <i>P</i>>0.05). At last follow-up, the VAS score for shoulder pain in the robot group was signifncatly lower compared to the control group, and the Constant-Murley score was significantly higher ( <i>P</i><0.05). In the robot group, 16 screws were implanted intraoperatively, while 13 screws were implanted in the control group. Radiographic re-evaluation showed that the excellent and good rate of screw implantation was higher in the robot group (93.8%, 15/16) than in the control group (61.5%, 8/13), but the difference in the precision of screw implantation between the two groups was not significant ( <i>P</i>>0.05). Four patients in the robot group and 1 in the control group achieved double screws fixation; however, the difference in achieving double screws fixation between the two groups was not significant ( <i>P</i>>0.05). All fractures healed in both groups with 1 case of malunion in the control group. There was no significant difference in healing time between the two groups ( <i>P</i>>0.05). During follow-up, 1 patient in the control group experienced screw loosening and displacement. There was no significant difference in the incidence of screw loosening and fracture malunion between the two groups ( <i>P</i>>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with manual screw implantation, TiRobot-assisted minimally invasive treatment of coracoid process fractures of the scapula can reduce intraoperative blood loss, shorten incision length, alleviate pain, and obtain better promote shoulder joint functional recovery.</p>","PeriodicalId":23979,"journal":{"name":"中国修复重建外科杂志","volume":"39 1","pages":"40-46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11757950/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中国修复重建外科杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7507/1002-1892.202409072","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To explore effectiveness of TiRobot-assisted screw implantation in the treatment of coracoid process fractures of the scapula.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data from 24 patients with coracoid process fractures of the scapula admitted between September 2019 and January 2024 and met selection criteria. Among them, 12 patients underwent TiRobot-assisted screw implantation (robot group) and 12 underwent manual screw implantation (control group) during internal fixation. There was no significant difference ( P>0.05) in baseline data such as gender, age, body mass index, disease duration, cause of injury, coracoid process fracture classification, and proportion of patients with associated injuries between the two groups. The incision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, accuracy of screw placement, coracoid process fracture healing time, and complications were recorded and compared, as well as pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and Constant-Murley score at last follow-up.

Results: The intraoperative blood loss and incision length in the robot group were significantly lower than those in the control group ( P<0.05); however, there was no significant difference in operation time and hospital stay between the two groups ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up 8-27 months (mean, 17.5 months), and the difference in follow-up time between the two groups was not significant ( P>0.05). At last follow-up, the VAS score for shoulder pain in the robot group was signifncatly lower compared to the control group, and the Constant-Murley score was significantly higher ( P<0.05). In the robot group, 16 screws were implanted intraoperatively, while 13 screws were implanted in the control group. Radiographic re-evaluation showed that the excellent and good rate of screw implantation was higher in the robot group (93.8%, 15/16) than in the control group (61.5%, 8/13), but the difference in the precision of screw implantation between the two groups was not significant ( P>0.05). Four patients in the robot group and 1 in the control group achieved double screws fixation; however, the difference in achieving double screws fixation between the two groups was not significant ( P>0.05). All fractures healed in both groups with 1 case of malunion in the control group. There was no significant difference in healing time between the two groups ( P>0.05). During follow-up, 1 patient in the control group experienced screw loosening and displacement. There was no significant difference in the incidence of screw loosening and fracture malunion between the two groups ( P>0.05).

Conclusion: Compared with manual screw implantation, TiRobot-assisted minimally invasive treatment of coracoid process fractures of the scapula can reduce intraoperative blood loss, shorten incision length, alleviate pain, and obtain better promote shoulder joint functional recovery.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
中国修复重建外科杂志
中国修复重建外科杂志 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11334
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
[Analysis of correlation between Barthel index score and preoperative occurrence of deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty revision surgery]. [Application and progress of intelligent responsive hydrogels in articular cartilage injury repair]. [Application of nickel-titanium shape memory staples in treatment of multiple metatarsal fractures]. [Comparative study on changes in forefoot width after minimally invasive extra-articular osteotomy via small incision for hallux valgus]. [Comparison of effectiveness between zero-profile anchored cage and plate-cage construct in treatment of consecutive three-level cervical spondylosis].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1