Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the merits and demerits of percutaneous robot-assisted screw fixation for nondisplaced pelvic fractures with other treatments via long-term follow-up. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of nondisplaced pelvic fractures treated between January 2015 and December 2021. The number of fluoroscopy exposures, operative duration, intraoperative blood loss, surgical complications, screw placement accuracy and Majeed score were compared among the nonoperative group (24 cases), open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) group (45 cases), free-hand empirical screw fixation (FH) group (10 cases) and robot-assisted screw fixation (RA) group (40 cases). RESULTS: There was less intraoperative blood loss in the RA and FH groups than in the ORIF group. The number of fluoroscopy exposures in the RA group was lower than that in the FH group but much higher than that in the ORIF group. There were five cases of wound infection in the ORIF group and no surgical complications in the FH or RA group. The medical expenses were higher in the RA group than in the FH group, with no significant difference from the ORIF group. The Majeed score was lowest in the nonoperative group three months after injury (64.5±12.0) but lowest in the ORIF group one year after injury (88.6±4.1). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous RA for nondisplaced pelvic fractures is effective and minimally invasive and does not increase medical expenses compared with ORIF. Therefore, it is the best choice for patients with nondisplaced pelvic fractures.