Comparison of Bone‐setting Robots and Conventional Reduction in the Treatment of Intertrochanteric Fracture: A Retrospective Study

Abstract

Objective Intertrochanteric fracture of the femur is a common fracture in older people. Due to the poor systemic condition and prognosis of elderly patients, it is prone to more complications. We introduce the bone‐setting concept in the design of the robots, which are used for intertrochanteric fracture of the femur reduction. The purpose of this study is to compare the effect of bone‐setting robots and conventional reduction in the treatment of intertrochanteric fracture of the femur (IFF). Methods From June 2021 to January 2023, 60 patients with IFF who were treated surgically were assigned to bone‐setting robots group and conventional reduction methods group in this retrospective study. The reduction time, operation time, total time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, fluoroscopy time, and the follow‐up time were reviewed. The visual analogue scale (VAS) and Harris scores were used for functional assessment. For continuous variables, independent t‐tests were applied; for categorical data, the chi‐square test was applied. The significance level as p 0.05). The reduction time, operation time, total time, intraoperative blood loss, and fluoroscopy time were less than those in the bone‐setting robots reduction group compared to the conventional reduction group. In the bone‐setting robots reduction group, the preoperative VAS score was 6.2 ± 1.3, the Harris score was 35.3 ± 3.1, 1 week after surgery VAS score was 3.3 ± 1.2, the Harris score was 57.3 ± 3.7, and at the last follow‐up VAS score was 2.4 ± 0.8, and the Harris score was 88.7 ± 3.4. While in the conventional reduction group, the preoperative VAS score was 6.3 ± 1.3, the Harris score was 35.9 ± 2.9, 1 week after surgery VAS score was 4.8 ± 1.4, the Harris score was 46.8 ± 2.8, and at the last follow‐up VAS score was 2.6 ± 0.8, and the Harris score was 87.3 ± 3.3. There were no significant differences between the two groups at the preoperative and 6‐month postoperative follow‐ups in VAS score and Harris score (p > 0.05, p > 0.05, respectively). But the difference was statistically significant at the one‐week postoperative follow‐up in VAS and Harris scores (p < 0.001). Conclusion The bone‐setting robots can better protect the “fracture environment” and have the advantages of being precise, minimally invasive, simple, short time, low radiation, and rapid fracture recovery. The clinical effect of closed repair of IFF is ideal.

Keywords

• Bone setting
• Conventional reduction
• Femur intertrochanteric fracture
• Robot