Robot-assisted versus traditional fixation for the treatment of calcaneal fractures: a meta-analysis.
Systematic Review
With the development of surgical technology, the level of digital medicine is constantly improving. The birth of new technologies has a certain impact on traditional methods. At present, robot-assisted technology has been applied to patients with calcaneal fractures, which poses a challenge to traditional surgery. We aimed to assess whether robot-assisted internal fixation confers certain surgical advantages through a literature review./r/nThe databases PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform were systematically searched for both randomized and nonrandomized studies involving patients with calcaneal fractures./r/nFive studies were identified that compared clinical indexes. For the clinical indexes, robot-assisted surgery is generally feasible because of intraoperative fluoroscopy, complications, the Gissane angle, the calcaneal width, and the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot score 3 and 6 months after the operation (P < 0.05). However, on the operation time, Böhler’s angle at 3 and 6 months, Gissane angle and calcaneal width at 6 months after the operation did not show good efficacy compared with those of the traditional group (P > 0.05)./r/nBased on the current evidence, the advantages of robot-assisted fixation over traditional fixation are clear. The long-term clinical effects of the two methods are also good, and the short-term effect of robot assistance is better. However, the quality of some studies is low, and more high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed for further verification.
