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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Zhao‐jie Liu, Yong‐cheng Hu, Wei Tian, Xin Jin, Hao‐tian Qi, Yu‐xi Sun, Jian Jia
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