Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To compare the robotic-assisted and the traditional freehand percutaneous scaphoid fixation in number of guidewire attempts, duration of fluoroscopy time, amount of radiation dose, and screw centrality.
METHODS: Twenty cadaveric specimens were randomized into either the robotic or freehand group. The scaphoids in both groups were fixed by either the same attending or resident from our hand surgery department. The operation duration, amount of radiation from intraoperative fluoroscopy, total fluoroscopy time, and the number of guidewire attempts were documented and compared. Postoperatively, all the specimens had a computed tomography (CT) scan performed, and the difference in the final position of the screw and the central axis of the scaphoid was examined.
RESULTS: In the robotic group, all the guide wires were satisfactorily positioned within a single attempt, while the median number of attempts in the traditional freehand group was 18 (quaternion 14-65). This also meant that the surgeon in the robotic group experienced significantly lower radiation exposure dose and time as compared to the freehand group. There were no significant differences in the final screw position as compared to the central axis of the scaphoid in both groups. Although there was no difference in surgeon performance in the robotic group, the operative time for the attending was significantly lower as compared to the resident in the freehand group.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted surgery for scaphoid fracture fixation is superior to the traditional freehand method as it facilitates accurate screw placement with lower radiation exposure and fewer guide wire attempts.
METHODS: Twenty cadaveric specimens were randomized into either the robotic or freehand group. The scaphoids in both groups were fixed by either the same attending or resident from our hand surgery department. The operation duration, amount of radiation from intraoperative fluoroscopy, total fluoroscopy time, and the number of guidewire attempts were documented and compared. Postoperatively, all the specimens had a computed tomography (CT) scan performed, and the difference in the final position of the screw and the central axis of the scaphoid was examined.
RESULTS: In the robotic group, all the guide wires were satisfactorily positioned within a single attempt, while the median number of attempts in the traditional freehand group was 18 (quaternion 14-65). This also meant that the surgeon in the robotic group experienced significantly lower radiation exposure dose and time as compared to the freehand group. There were no significant differences in the final screw position as compared to the central axis of the scaphoid in both groups. Although there was no difference in surgeon performance in the robotic group, the operative time for the attending was significantly lower as compared to the resident in the freehand group.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted surgery for scaphoid fracture fixation is superior to the traditional freehand method as it facilitates accurate screw placement with lower radiation exposure and fewer guide wire attempts.
摘要：
目的：比较机器人辅助和传统徒手经皮舟骨固定的导丝尝试次数，透视时间的持续时间，辐射剂量，和螺丝中心。
方法：将20个尸体标本随机分为机器人组或徒手组。两组的舟骨均由我们手外科的同一主治医师或住院医师固定。操作持续时间,术中透视的辐射量，总透视时间,记录并比较导丝尝试次数.术后,所有标本都进行了计算机断层扫描（CT）扫描，并检查了螺钉的最终位置和舟骨的中心轴的差异。
结果：在机器人组中，所有的导丝都在一次尝试中令人满意地定位，而传统徒手组的尝试次数中位数为18（四元数14-65）。这也意味着与徒手组相比，机器人组中的外科医生经历了显着更低的辐射暴露剂量和时间。与舟骨的中心轴相比，两组的最终螺钉位置没有显着差异。尽管机器人组的外科医生表现没有差异，与徒手组的住院医师相比，主治医师的手术时间明显较短。
结论：机器人辅助手术治疗舟骨骨折优于传统徒手固定方法，因为它有助于准确放置螺钉，辐射暴露较低，导丝尝试较少。
方法：将20个尸体标本随机分为机器人组或徒手组。两组的舟骨均由我们手外科的同一主治医师或住院医师固定。操作持续时间,术中透视的辐射量，总透视时间,记录并比较导丝尝试次数.术后,所有标本都进行了计算机断层扫描（CT）扫描，并检查了螺钉的最终位置和舟骨的中心轴的差异。
结果：在机器人组中，所有的导丝都在一次尝试中令人满意地定位，而传统徒手组的尝试次数中位数为18（四元数14-65）。这也意味着与徒手组相比，机器人组中的外科医生经历了显着更低的辐射暴露剂量和时间。与舟骨的中心轴相比，两组的最终螺钉位置没有显着差异。尽管机器人组的外科医生表现没有差异，与徒手组的住院医师相比，主治医师的手术时间明显较短。
结论：机器人辅助手术治疗舟骨骨折优于传统徒手固定方法，因为它有助于准确放置螺钉，辐射暴露较低，导丝尝试较少。
