Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate short-term effectiveness and clinical application advantages of orthopedic robot-assisted resection for osteoid osteoma compared with traditional open surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data of 48 osteoid osteoma patients who met the selection criteria between July 2022 and April 2023. Among them, 23 patients underwent orthopedic robot-assisted resection (robot-assisted surgery group), and 25 patients received traditional open surgery (traditional surgery group). There was no significant difference ( P>0.05) in gender, age, disease duration, lesion location and size, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and musculoskeletal tumor society (MSTS) score between the two groups. The surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative lesion localization time, initial localization success rate, infection, and recurrence were recorded and compared. VAS scores before surgery and at 24 hours, 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after surgery and MSTS score before surgery and at 3 months after surgery were assessed. RESULTS: All patients completed the surgery successfully, with no significant difference in surgical time between the two groups ( P>0.05). Compared to the traditional surgery group, the robot-assisted surgery group had less intraoperative blood loss, shorter lesion localization time, and shorter hospitalization time, with significant differences ( P<0.05). The initial localization success rate was higher in the robot-assisted surgery group than in the traditional surgery group, but the difference between the two groups was not significant ( P>0.05). All patients in both groups were followed up, with the follow-up time of 3-12 months in the robot-assisted surgery group (median, 6 months) and 3-14 months in the traditional surgery group (median, 6 months). The postoperative MSTS scores of both groups improved significantly when compared to those before surgery ( P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in the changes in MSTS scores between the two groups ( P>0.05). The postoperative VAS scores of both groups showed a gradually decreasing trend over time ( P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups after surgery ( P>0.05). During follow-up, except for 1 case of postoperative infection in the traditional surgery group, there was no infections or recurrences in other cases. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative infection between the two groups ( P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Orthopedic robot-assisted osteoid osteoma resection achieves similar short-term effectiveness when compared to traditional open surgery, with shorter lesion localization time.