Robot‐Aided Minimally Invasive Lumbopelvic Fixation in Treatment of Traumatic Spinopelvic Dissociation
Objective To investigate the surgical strategy, safety, and efficacy of close reduction and robot‐aided minimally invasive lumbopelvic fixation in treatment of traumatic spinopelvic dissociation. Methods Data of 32 patients (21 males and 11 females) with traumatic spinopelvic dissociation treated by...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Wiley
2021-04-01
|
Series: | Orthopaedic Surgery |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12908 |
id |
doaj-51a1a1e61f904b5a9b47e1160d2ae624 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-51a1a1e61f904b5a9b47e1160d2ae6242021-03-15T09:03:02ZengWileyOrthopaedic Surgery1757-78531757-78612021-04-0113256357210.1111/os.12908Robot‐Aided Minimally Invasive Lumbopelvic Fixation in Treatment of Traumatic Spinopelvic DissociationZhao‐jie Liu0Yong‐cheng Hu1Wei Tian2Xin Jin3Hao‐tian Qi4Yu‐xi Sun5Jian Jia6Department of Orthopaedics Tianjin Hospital Tianjin ChinaDepartment of Orthopaedics Tianjin Hospital Tianjin ChinaDepartment of Orthopaedics Tianjin Hospital Tianjin ChinaDepartment of Orthopaedics Tianjin Hospital Tianjin ChinaDepartment of Orthopaedics Tianjin Hospital Tianjin ChinaDepartment of Orthopaedics Tianjin Hospital Tianjin ChinaDepartment of Orthopaedics Tianjin Hospital Tianjin ChinaObjective To investigate the surgical strategy, safety, and efficacy of close reduction and robot‐aided minimally invasive lumbopelvic fixation in treatment of traumatic spinopelvic dissociation. Methods Data of 32 patients (21 males and 11 females) with traumatic spinopelvic dissociation treated by lumbopelvic fixation with robot‐aided minimally invasive technique or conventional open procedure in our institution from March 2010 to April 2019 were retrospectively analyzed, and divided into robot group and control group. Intraoperative blood loss, surgical time, fluoroscopy frequency, total drilling times, infection rate, hospitalization time, and sacral fracture healing time were reviewed. Radiographs and computed tomography (CT) scans were totally acquired to evaluate the reduction quality, residual fracture displacement, and Gras classification on screws insertion after surgery. According to the Majeed scoring system, functional outcome was assessed for each patient at the final follow‐up. Results There were 12 patients in the robot group and 20 patients in the control group with no significant difference about the demographic data. The average surgical time was 148.3 ± 40.5 min with intraoperative blood loss of 142.5±36.7 mL in the robot group and 185.0 ± 47.8 min with 612.5 ± 182.7 mL in the control group (P = 0.034, P = 0.000). The robot group had a shorter mean hospitalization time at 19.9 ± 7.0 days compared to the control group with 28.6 ± 5.4 days (P = 0.010). The fluoroscopy frequency was 35.4 ± 3.0 in the robot group and 45.5 ± 3.6 in the control group (P = 0.000) and total drilling times were 7.1 ± 1.1 and 9.6 ± 1.3 (P = 0.000), respectively. The infection rate was 0% (0/12) in the robot group and 15% (3/20) in the control group (P = 0.159). According to the Gras classification on screw positioning, there were 11 cases in Grade I and 1 case in Grade II in the robot group, and 14 cases in Grade I and 6 cases in Grade II in the control group. All the patients were followed up consecutively for at least 12 months, with an average follow‐up period of 17.1 ± 3.6 months. All sacral fractures healed with an average time of 3.8 ± 0.6 months in the robot group and 4.7 ± 0.7 months in the control group (P = 0.000). According to Majeed functional assessment investigation, the mean score of the patients was 87.2 ± 4.0 in the robot group and 83.1 ± 4.5 in the control group (P = 0.015). Conclusions Robot‐aided minimally invasive lumbopelvic fixation for traumatic spinopelvic dissociation is a safe and feasible option with advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, less radiation damage, less hospitalization time, and better functional outcome.https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12908Fracture FixationInternalMinimally invasive surgical proceduresPelvisRoboticsSacrum |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Zhao‐jie Liu Yong‐cheng Hu Wei Tian Xin Jin Hao‐tian Qi Yu‐xi Sun Jian Jia |
spellingShingle |
Zhao‐jie Liu Yong‐cheng Hu Wei Tian Xin Jin Hao‐tian Qi Yu‐xi Sun Jian Jia Robot‐Aided Minimally Invasive Lumbopelvic Fixation in Treatment of Traumatic Spinopelvic Dissociation Orthopaedic Surgery Fracture Fixation Internal Minimally invasive surgical procedures Pelvis Robotics Sacrum |
author_facet |
Zhao‐jie Liu Yong‐cheng Hu Wei Tian Xin Jin Hao‐tian Qi Yu‐xi Sun Jian Jia |
author_sort |
Zhao‐jie Liu |
title |
Robot‐Aided Minimally Invasive Lumbopelvic Fixation in Treatment of Traumatic Spinopelvic Dissociation |
title_short |
Robot‐Aided Minimally Invasive Lumbopelvic Fixation in Treatment of Traumatic Spinopelvic Dissociation |
title_full |
Robot‐Aided Minimally Invasive Lumbopelvic Fixation in Treatment of Traumatic Spinopelvic Dissociation |
title_fullStr |
Robot‐Aided Minimally Invasive Lumbopelvic Fixation in Treatment of Traumatic Spinopelvic Dissociation |
title_full_unstemmed |
Robot‐Aided Minimally Invasive Lumbopelvic Fixation in Treatment of Traumatic Spinopelvic Dissociation |
title_sort |
robot‐aided minimally invasive lumbopelvic fixation in treatment of traumatic spinopelvic dissociation |
publisher |
Wiley |
series |
Orthopaedic Surgery |
issn |
1757-7853 1757-7861 |
publishDate |
2021-04-01 |
description |
Objective To investigate the surgical strategy, safety, and efficacy of close reduction and robot‐aided minimally invasive lumbopelvic fixation in treatment of traumatic spinopelvic dissociation. Methods Data of 32 patients (21 males and 11 females) with traumatic spinopelvic dissociation treated by lumbopelvic fixation with robot‐aided minimally invasive technique or conventional open procedure in our institution from March 2010 to April 2019 were retrospectively analyzed, and divided into robot group and control group. Intraoperative blood loss, surgical time, fluoroscopy frequency, total drilling times, infection rate, hospitalization time, and sacral fracture healing time were reviewed. Radiographs and computed tomography (CT) scans were totally acquired to evaluate the reduction quality, residual fracture displacement, and Gras classification on screws insertion after surgery. According to the Majeed scoring system, functional outcome was assessed for each patient at the final follow‐up. Results There were 12 patients in the robot group and 20 patients in the control group with no significant difference about the demographic data. The average surgical time was 148.3 ± 40.5 min with intraoperative blood loss of 142.5±36.7 mL in the robot group and 185.0 ± 47.8 min with 612.5 ± 182.7 mL in the control group (P = 0.034, P = 0.000). The robot group had a shorter mean hospitalization time at 19.9 ± 7.0 days compared to the control group with 28.6 ± 5.4 days (P = 0.010). The fluoroscopy frequency was 35.4 ± 3.0 in the robot group and 45.5 ± 3.6 in the control group (P = 0.000) and total drilling times were 7.1 ± 1.1 and 9.6 ± 1.3 (P = 0.000), respectively. The infection rate was 0% (0/12) in the robot group and 15% (3/20) in the control group (P = 0.159). According to the Gras classification on screw positioning, there were 11 cases in Grade I and 1 case in Grade II in the robot group, and 14 cases in Grade I and 6 cases in Grade II in the control group. All the patients were followed up consecutively for at least 12 months, with an average follow‐up period of 17.1 ± 3.6 months. All sacral fractures healed with an average time of 3.8 ± 0.6 months in the robot group and 4.7 ± 0.7 months in the control group (P = 0.000). According to Majeed functional assessment investigation, the mean score of the patients was 87.2 ± 4.0 in the robot group and 83.1 ± 4.5 in the control group (P = 0.015). Conclusions Robot‐aided minimally invasive lumbopelvic fixation for traumatic spinopelvic dissociation is a safe and feasible option with advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, less radiation damage, less hospitalization time, and better functional outcome. |
topic |
Fracture Fixation Internal Minimally invasive surgical procedures Pelvis Robotics Sacrum |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12908 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT zhaojieliu robotaidedminimallyinvasivelumbopelvicfixationintreatmentoftraumaticspinopelvicdissociation AT yongchenghu robotaidedminimallyinvasivelumbopelvicfixationintreatmentoftraumaticspinopelvicdissociation AT weitian robotaidedminimallyinvasivelumbopelvicfixationintreatmentoftraumaticspinopelvicdissociation AT xinjin robotaidedminimallyinvasivelumbopelvicfixationintreatmentoftraumaticspinopelvicdissociation AT haotianqi robotaidedminimallyinvasivelumbopelvicfixationintreatmentoftraumaticspinopelvicdissociation AT yuxisun robotaidedminimallyinvasivelumbopelvicfixationintreatmentoftraumaticspinopelvicdissociation AT jianjia robotaidedminimallyinvasivelumbopelvicfixationintreatmentoftraumaticspinopelvicdissociation |
_version_ |
1724220727625777152 |