Clinical efficacy and biomechanical analysis of robotic internal fixation with percutaneous screws in the treatment of both-column acetabular fractures.

IF 3.9 2区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Xiangyu Qi, Xu Zhang, Qing Zhang, Yazhong Zhang, Shaolong Huang, Yongxiang Lv, Wenbo Li, Jun Qiang Wang, Ziqiang Zhu
{"title":"Clinical efficacy and biomechanical analysis of robotic internal fixation with percutaneous screws in the treatment of both-column acetabular fractures.","authors":"Xiangyu Qi, Xu Zhang, Qing Zhang, Yazhong Zhang, Shaolong Huang, Yongxiang Lv, Wenbo Li, Jun Qiang Wang, Ziqiang Zhu","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-06168-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Both-column fractures of the acetabulum represent a particularly complex category of injury, with a high proportion necessitating surgical intervention. The most common surgical method is open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), but this has problems like blood loss, long operations, and trauma after surgery. Robot-assisted percutaneous screw fixation is a minimally invasive treatment for both-column acetabular fractures. It has several clinical advantages, including precise screw positioning and stable performance. A comparison of the clinical efficacy of open reduction and internal fixation and robot-assisted percutaneous screws in the treatment of both-column acetabular fractures and biomechanical analyses were performed to compare the stability of the two fixation methods. Firstly, A finite element model was constructed for the purposes of analyzing both-column acetabular fractures, percutaneous screws, and reconstruction plates. Divided into four experimental groups: Group I: Acetabular anterior and posterior columns are screwed with a 6.5 mm percutaneous screw. Group II: The anterior column of the acetabulum is fixed with a 6.5 mm percutaneous screw, while the posterior column is fixed with a 7.3 mm percutaneous screw. Group III: Acetabular anterior and posterior columns are screwed with a 7.3 mm percutaneous screw. Group IV: Acetabular anterior and posterior columns are fixed with a 6-hole reconstruction plate. Each fracture group was tested under axial loads of 600 N to measure the hipbone's displacement, Von Mises stress (VMS), and its internal fixation components. Secondly, 36 patients with both-column acetabular fractures admitted from September 2020 to September 2023 were retrospectively analyzed; 19 of them in the ORIF group, and 17 of them in the robot-assisted group. A comparison of the operative time, duration of intraoperative fluoroscopy, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, Matta's radiological criteria, and Harris Hip Score (HHS) in two groups of patients. In terms of finite element analysis, the maximum VMS was observed for internal fixation in group II, and the minimum VMS was observed in group IV. The displacements of groups I, II, and III internal fixation were the same (approximately 1.00 mm), and the minimum internal fixation displacement was observed in group IV. The mean operating time in the ORIF group was 190.45 ± 25.40 min, the incision length was 20.56 ± 3.38 centimeters, the intraoperative bleeding was 958.73 ± 128.68 ml, and the fluoroscopy time was 55.18 ± 10.25 s. The mean operating time in the robotic group was 99.7 ± 18.8 min, with an incision length of 7.35 ± 0.56 cm, intraoperative bleeding of 50.00 ± 15.20 ml, and fluoroscopy time of 22.52 ± 14.50 s. There was a significant difference between the above data (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in Matta's radiological criteria between the two groups. HHS at three months postoperatively and six months postoperatively were 77.81 ± 2.23 and 84.78 ± 4.65 in the ORIF group, and at three months postoperatively and six months postoperatively in the robotic group were 72.19 ± 1.85 and 82.28 ± 3.32. The use of robot-assisted percutaneous screw internal fixation for both-column acetabular fractures has been demonstrated to have similar fixed strength and therapeutic effect to that of ORIF plate fixation. In contrast, robot-assisted percutaneous screw therapy offers the advantages of minimal invasiveness and precision, thereby providing a novel therapeutic option for the clinical treatment of both-column acetabular fractures.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"22908"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12216115/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-06168-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Both-column fractures of the acetabulum represent a particularly complex category of injury, with a high proportion necessitating surgical intervention. The most common surgical method is open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), but this has problems like blood loss, long operations, and trauma after surgery. Robot-assisted percutaneous screw fixation is a minimally invasive treatment for both-column acetabular fractures. It has several clinical advantages, including precise screw positioning and stable performance. A comparison of the clinical efficacy of open reduction and internal fixation and robot-assisted percutaneous screws in the treatment of both-column acetabular fractures and biomechanical analyses were performed to compare the stability of the two fixation methods. Firstly, A finite element model was constructed for the purposes of analyzing both-column acetabular fractures, percutaneous screws, and reconstruction plates. Divided into four experimental groups: Group I: Acetabular anterior and posterior columns are screwed with a 6.5 mm percutaneous screw. Group II: The anterior column of the acetabulum is fixed with a 6.5 mm percutaneous screw, while the posterior column is fixed with a 7.3 mm percutaneous screw. Group III: Acetabular anterior and posterior columns are screwed with a 7.3 mm percutaneous screw. Group IV: Acetabular anterior and posterior columns are fixed with a 6-hole reconstruction plate. Each fracture group was tested under axial loads of 600 N to measure the hipbone's displacement, Von Mises stress (VMS), and its internal fixation components. Secondly, 36 patients with both-column acetabular fractures admitted from September 2020 to September 2023 were retrospectively analyzed; 19 of them in the ORIF group, and 17 of them in the robot-assisted group. A comparison of the operative time, duration of intraoperative fluoroscopy, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, Matta's radiological criteria, and Harris Hip Score (HHS) in two groups of patients. In terms of finite element analysis, the maximum VMS was observed for internal fixation in group II, and the minimum VMS was observed in group IV. The displacements of groups I, II, and III internal fixation were the same (approximately 1.00 mm), and the minimum internal fixation displacement was observed in group IV. The mean operating time in the ORIF group was 190.45 ± 25.40 min, the incision length was 20.56 ± 3.38 centimeters, the intraoperative bleeding was 958.73 ± 128.68 ml, and the fluoroscopy time was 55.18 ± 10.25 s. The mean operating time in the robotic group was 99.7 ± 18.8 min, with an incision length of 7.35 ± 0.56 cm, intraoperative bleeding of 50.00 ± 15.20 ml, and fluoroscopy time of 22.52 ± 14.50 s. There was a significant difference between the above data (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in Matta's radiological criteria between the two groups. HHS at three months postoperatively and six months postoperatively were 77.81 ± 2.23 and 84.78 ± 4.65 in the ORIF group, and at three months postoperatively and six months postoperatively in the robotic group were 72.19 ± 1.85 and 82.28 ± 3.32. The use of robot-assisted percutaneous screw internal fixation for both-column acetabular fractures has been demonstrated to have similar fixed strength and therapeutic effect to that of ORIF plate fixation. In contrast, robot-assisted percutaneous screw therapy offers the advantages of minimal invasiveness and precision, thereby providing a novel therapeutic option for the clinical treatment of both-column acetabular fractures.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

机械内固定经皮螺钉治疗髋臼双柱骨折的临床疗效及生物力学分析。
髋臼双柱骨折是一类特别复杂的损伤,需要手术干预的比例很高。最常见的手术方法是切开复位内固定(ORIF),但这种方法存在失血、长时间手术和术后创伤等问题。机器人辅助经皮螺钉内固定是一种微创治疗髋臼双柱骨折的方法。临床上具有螺钉定位精确、性能稳定等优点。比较切开复位内固定与机器人辅助经皮螺钉治疗髋臼双柱骨折的临床疗效,并进行生物力学分析,比较两种固定方法的稳定性。首先建立有限元模型,对髋臼双柱骨折、经皮螺钉和重建钢板进行分析。实验组分为四组:第一组:用6.5 mm经皮螺钉固定髋臼前后柱。第二组:采用6.5 mm经皮螺钉固定髋臼前柱,7.3 mm经皮螺钉固定髋臼后柱。III组:用7.3 mm经皮螺钉固定髋臼前后柱。IV组:用6孔重建钢板固定髋臼前后柱。每个骨折组在600 N的轴向载荷下进行测试,测量髋骨位移、Von Mises应力(VMS)及其内固定构件。其次,对2020年9月至2023年9月收治的36例髋臼双柱骨折患者进行回顾性分析;其中19人在ORIF组,17人在机器人辅助组。比较两组患者的手术时间、术中透视时间、术中出血量、切口长度、Matta放射学标准和Harris髋关节评分(HHS)。有限元分析,观察最大vm内固定在第二组,观察和最低vm在第四组,组的位移II, III和内固定是相同的(约1.00毫米),和最低内固定在第四组观察位移。提组平均手术时间是190.45±25.40分钟,切口长度为20.56±3.38厘米,术中出血是958.73±128.68毫升,透视时间55.18±10.25 s。机器人组平均手术时间99.7±18.8 min,切口长度7.35±0.56 cm,术中出血量50.00±15.20 ml,透视时间22.52±14.50 s。以上数据比较,差异有统计学意义(P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Scientific Reports
Scientific Reports Natural Science Disciplines-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19567
审稿时长
3.9 months
期刊介绍: We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections. Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021). •Engineering Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live. •Physical sciences Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics. •Earth and environmental sciences Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems. •Biological sciences Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants. •Health sciences The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信