摘要
Object: To compare the safety, clinical efficacy, and complication rate of “Tianji” robot-assisted surgery with traditional open surgery in the treatment of cervical vertebrae fracture. Methods: 60 patients with upper cervical vertebrae fracture admitted to Baise People’s Hospital between November 2018 and April 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Among these patients, 29 underwent “Tianji” robot-assisted surgery (Robot group), and 31 underwent traditional C-arm fluoroscopy-assisted open surgery (Open group). Statistical analysis of the data was performed using SPSS 27.0 software to compare general data (gender, age, BMI), preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, neck disability index (NDI), intraoperative blood loss, accuracy of screw placement on imaging, and the number of complications in both groups for comprehensive evaluation. A P value < 0.05 was deemed to have achieved statistical significance. Results: There was no significant difference in preoperative VAS scores between the two groups (Robot group: 8.34 ± 0.61;Open group: 8.26 ± 0.68, P = 0.317). There was also no significant difference in VAS scores at 1 week postoperatively (Robot group: 6.90 ± 0.31;Open group: 6.94 ± 0.36, P = 0.3237). Preoperative NDI scores showed no significant difference between the two groups (Robot group: 43.31 ± 2.67;Open group: 43.84 ± 2.67, P = 0.2227), and the difference in NDI scores at 1 week postoperatively was also not significant (Robot group: 35.69 ± 4.24;Open group: 37.35 ± 3.48, P = 0.0509). Intraoperative blood loss in the Robot group was significantly lower than in the Open group (246.21 ± 209 ml vs 380.65 ± 328.04 ml, P = 0.0308), with a statistically significant difference. The operation time was longer in the Robot group (3.75 ± 0.74 h) compared to the Open group (2.74 ± 0.86 h). In terms of screw placement accuracy, the Robot group had a higher accuracy rate for Class A screws compared to the Open group (102 screws vs 94 screws, P = 0.0487), and the accuracy rat
Object: To compare the safety, clinical efficacy, and complication rate of “Tianji” robot-assisted surgery with traditional open surgery in the treatment of cervical vertebrae fracture. Methods: 60 patients with upper cervical vertebrae fracture admitted to Baise People’s Hospital between November 2018 and April 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Among these patients, 29 underwent “Tianji” robot-assisted surgery (Robot group), and 31 underwent traditional C-arm fluoroscopy-assisted open surgery (Open group). Statistical analysis of the data was performed using SPSS 27.0 software to compare general data (gender, age, BMI), preoperative and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, neck disability index (NDI), intraoperative blood loss, accuracy of screw placement on imaging, and the number of complications in both groups for comprehensive evaluation. A P value < 0.05 was deemed to have achieved statistical significance. Results: There was no significant difference in preoperative VAS scores between the two groups (Robot group: 8.34 ± 0.61;Open group: 8.26 ± 0.68, P = 0.317). There was also no significant difference in VAS scores at 1 week postoperatively (Robot group: 6.90 ± 0.31;Open group: 6.94 ± 0.36, P = 0.3237). Preoperative NDI scores showed no significant difference between the two groups (Robot group: 43.31 ± 2.67;Open group: 43.84 ± 2.67, P = 0.2227), and the difference in NDI scores at 1 week postoperatively was also not significant (Robot group: 35.69 ± 4.24;Open group: 37.35 ± 3.48, P = 0.0509). Intraoperative blood loss in the Robot group was significantly lower than in the Open group (246.21 ± 209 ml vs 380.65 ± 328.04 ml, P = 0.0308), with a statistically significant difference. The operation time was longer in the Robot group (3.75 ± 0.74 h) compared to the Open group (2.74 ± 0.86 h). In terms of screw placement accuracy, the Robot group had a higher accuracy rate for Class A screws compared to the Open group (102 screws vs 94 screws, P = 0.0487), and the accuracy rat
作者
Chengkua Huang
Yuanjian Huang
Weikang Yang
Qianhou Zhou
Xianhai Zeng
Junlei Tan
Mei Zhang
Guosheng Su
Sheng Nong
Chengkua Huang;Yuanjian Huang;Weikang Yang;Qianhou Zhou;Xianhai Zeng;Junlei Tan;Mei Zhang;Guosheng Su;Sheng Nong(Baise City Peoples Hospital (Affiliated Southwest Hospital of Youjiang Medical University for Nationalities), Baise, China;Graduate School of Yirong National Medical College, Baise, China;The Clinical Laboratory Department of the Peoples Hospital of Guangxi-ASEAN Economic and Technological Development Zone (Nanning No. 10 Peoples Hospital), Nanning, China;School of Public Health Management, Youjiang Medical University for Nationalities, Baise, China)
