Advantage and disadvantage of robot-assisted sacroiliac screw placement and traditional fluoroscopy in orthopedic surgery

doi:10.12307/2022.442

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Patients with pelvic fractures are often accompanied by sacroiliac joint separation, and the most effective surgical treatment for this condition is the placement of sacroiliac screws. At present, the commonly used nail placement method is mainly for the surgeon to place it by hand under fluoroscopy. The accuracy and safety are poor, and the screw position after surgery is closely related to the experience of the surgeon. Orthopedic surgical robot-assisted sacroiliac screw placement is an advanced surgical method recently. However, due to the high cost of robots and limited clinical applications, there are currently many controversies regarding the safety and reliability of the operation.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical effect of robot-assisted sacroiliac screw placement.
METHODS: A total of 95 patients with pelvic fractures treated in Foshan Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine from January 2018 to January 2020 were reviewed. Among them, 48 patients underwent percutaneous sacroiliac screw placement and 47 patients underwent robot-assisted sacroiliac screw placement. The operation time of sacroiliac screw placement, the number of postoperative complications, Matta score, Majeed score, and Merle D 'Aubigne and Postel score were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) The operation time of the robot-assisted sacroiliac screw placement group was significantly shorter than that in the percutaneous sacroiliac screw placement group (P < 0.05). The incidence of complications was significantly lower in the robot-assisted sacroiliac screw placement group than that in the percutaneous sacroiliac screw placement group (P < 0.05). Five cases of internal fixation failure and three cases of fracture nonunion were found in the percutaneous sacroiliac screw placement group. One case of fracture nonunion was found in the robot-assisted sacroiliac screw placement group. The healing of the above cases was finally achieved by replacing internal fixation. (2) The excellent and good rates of Matta score, Majeed score, and Merle D 'Aubigne and Postel score were significantly higher in the robot-assisted sacroiliac screw placement group than those in the percutaneous sacroiliac screw placement group (P < 0.05). (3) The fluoroscope time was significantly shorter in the robot-assisted sacroiliac screw placement group (7.2±1.5) s/times than that in the percutaneous sacroiliac screw placement group (25.7±7.6) s/times (P < 0.05). (4) The results showed that the robot-assisted sacroiliac screw placement had the advantages of short operation time and high accuracy.

Key words: pelvic fracture, sacroiliac screw">, surgical robot">, percutaneous screw placement">, Matta score">, Majeed score

CLC Number:

Li Canhui, Wu Zhengjie, Zeng Yanhui, He Yinghao, Situ Xiaopeng, Du Xuelian, Hong Shi, He Jiaxiong. Advantage and disadvantage of robot-assisted sacroiliac screw placement and traditional fluoroscopy in orthopedic surgery[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2022, 26(9): 1434-1438.

Figures/Tables 4

References

[1] HAUSCHILD O, STROHM PC, CULEMANN U, et al. Mortality in patients with pelvic fractures: results from the German pelvic injury register.J Trauma. 2008;64(2):449-455.
[2] LIUZZA F, SILLUZIO N, FLORIO M, et al. Comparison between posterior sacral plate stabilization versus minimally invasive transiliac-transsacral lag-screw fixation in fractures of sacrum: a single-centre experience. Int Orthop. 2019;43(1):177-185.
[3] COLLINGE C, COONS D, TORNETTA P, et al. Standard multiplanar fluoroscopy versus a fluoroscopically based navigation system for the percutaneous insertion of iliosacral screws: a cadaver model. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19(4):254-258.
[4] MAJEED SA. Grading the outcome of pelvic fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989;71(2):304-306.
[5] DUDDA M, HOFFMANN M, SCHILDHAUER TA. Sacrum fractures and lumbopelvic instabilities in pelvic ring injuries: classification and biomechanical aspects. Unfallchirurg. 2013;116(11):972-978.
[6] LINDSAY A, TORNETTA P 3RD, DIWAN A, et al. Is Closed Reduction and Percutaneous Fixation of Unstable Posterior Ring Injuries as Accurate as Open Reduction and Internal Fixation? J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(1):29-33.
[7] SUERO EM, GREINER A, BECKER CA, et al. Biomechanical stability of sacroiliac screw osteosynthesis with and without cement augmentation. Injury. 2020 Jan 30.doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2020.01.043.
[8] 刘钢,杨强,郝永宏,等.第2骶椎骶髂螺钉固定骶骨骨盆的优势及意义[J].中国组织工程研究,2021,25(21):3395-3400.
[9] 孟士超,吴斗,赵恩哲,等.骶髂螺钉治疗骨盆后环骨折及辅助置钉技术的研究进展[J].中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志,2021,7(3):187-192.
[10] 张玉坤,李磊,任军.骶髂关节不同固定方式对骶部影响的生物力学研究[J].中华骨与关节外科杂志,2021,14(2):92-96.
[11] HINSCHE AF, GIANNOUDIS PV, SMITH RM. Fluoroscopy-based multiplanar image guidance for insertion of sacroiliac screws. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;(395):135-144.
[12] 邓宁,吴伟坚,梁国穗,等.机器人和计算机辅助骨科手术[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2005,7(7):620-624.
[13] LEAL GHEZZI T, CAMPOS CORLETA O. 30 Years of Robotic Surgery. World J Surg. 2016;40(10):2550-2557.
[14] PAUL HA, BARGAR WL, MITTLESTADT B, et al. Development of a surgical robot for cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992; (285):57-66.
[15] SAUTOT P,CINQUIN P, LAVALLÉE S,et al.Computer assisted spine surgery: A first step toward clinical, application in orthopaedics//1992 14th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE, 1992.
[16] MOLLIQAJ G, SCHATLO B, ALAID A, et al. Accuracy of robot-guided versus freehand fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw insertion in thoracolumbar spinal surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42(5):E14.
[17] 王成勇,谢国能,赵丹娜,等.医疗手术机器人发展概况[J].工具技术,2016,50(7):3-12.
[18] 张鹤,韩建达,周跃.脊柱微创手术机器人系统辅助打孔的实验研究[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2011,13(12):1166-1169.
[19] TIAN W, HAN X, LIU B, et al. A robot-assisted surgical system using a force-image control method for pedicle screw insertion. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e86346.
[20] 蒋侃凌,田维,贾健,等. TiRobot手术机器人辅助经皮骶髂螺钉固定治疗骨盆后环不稳定损伤[J].天津医科大学学报,2017,23(3): 247-251.
[21] 赵春鹏,王军强,苏永刚,等.机器人辅助经皮螺钉内固定治疗骨盆和髋臼骨折[J].北京大学学报(医学版),2017,49(2):274-280.
[22] ZWINGMANN J, KONRAD G, MEHLHORN AT, et al. Percutaneous iliosacral screw insertion: malpositioning and revision rate of screws with regards to application technique (navigated vs. Conventional). J Trauma. 2010;69(6):1501-1506.
[23] ZWINGMANN J, HAUSCHILD O, BODE G, et al. Malposition and revision rates of different imaging modalities for percutaneous iliosacral screw fixation following pelvic fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(9):1257-1265.
[24] ZWINGMANN J, KONRAD G, KOTTER E, et al. Computer-navigated iliosacral screw insertion reduces malposition rate and radiation exposure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(7):1833-1838.
[25] WEBB JE, REGEV GJ, GARFIN SR, et al. Navigation-assisted fluoroscopy in minimally invasive direct lateral interbody fusion: a cadaveric study. SAS J. 2010;4(4):115-121.
[26] KIM JW, OH CW, OH JK, et al. Percutaneous iliosacral screwing in pelvic ring injury using three-dimensional fluoroscopy. J Orthop Sci. 2013; 18(1):87-92.
[27] HE M, HAN W, ZHAO CP, et al. Evaluation of a Bi-Planar Robot Navigation System for Insertion of Cannulated Screws in Femoral Neck Fractures. Orthop Surg. 2019;11(3):373-379.
[28] ECKER TM, JOST J, CULLMANN JL, et al. Percutaneous screw fixation of the iliosacral joint: A case-based preoperative planning approach reduces operating time and radiation exposure. Injury. 2017;48(8): 1825-1830.
[29] 贾帅军,吕尚军,贺利军,等.三维导航技术辅助经皮骶髂螺钉治疗骨盆后环骨折[J].创伤外科杂志,2014,16(6):506-510.
[30] STÖCKLE U, SCHASER K, KÖNIG B. Image guidance in pelvic and acetabular surgery--expectations, success and limitations. Injury. 2007; 38(4):450-462.