Comparative study of orthopaedic robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery and open surgery for limb osteoid osteoma.
10.7507/1002-1892.202310067
- Author:
Junwei FENG
1
;
Weimin LIANG
2
;
Yue WANG
2
;
Zhi TANG
2
;
MuFuSha A
1
;
Baoxiu XU
1
;
Niezhenghao HE
1
;
Peng HAO
2
Author Information
1. School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu Sichuan, 610054, P. R. Chnia.
2. Department of Orthopedics, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences·Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Chengdu Sichuan, 610072, P. R. Chnia.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Osteoid osteoma;
early effectiveness;
minimally invasive surgery;
orthopaedic robot
- MeSH:
Humans;
Robotics;
Osteoma, Osteoid/surgery*;
Orthopedics;
Blood Loss, Surgical;
Retrospective Studies;
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local;
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures;
Bone Neoplasms/surgery*;
Analgesics;
Treatment Outcome
- From:
Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery
2024;38(1):40-45
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To compare the accuracy and effectiveness of orthopaedic robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for limb osteoid osteoma.
METHODS:A clinical data of 36 patients with limb osteoid osteomas admitted between June 2016 and June 2023 was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 16 patients underwent orthopaedic robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery (robot-assisted surgery group), and 20 patients underwent tumor resection after lotcated by C-arm X-ray fluoroscopy (open surgery group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the gender, age, lesion site, tumor nidus diameter, and preoperative pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores ( P>0.05). The operation time, lesion resection time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency, lesion resection accuracy, and postoperative analgesic use frequency were recorded and compared between the two groups. The VAS scores for pain severity were compared preoperatively and at 3 days and 3 months postoperatively.
RESULTS:Compared with the open surgery group, the robot-assisted surgery group had a longer operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, less fluoroscopy frequency, less postoperative analgesic use frequency, and higher lesion resection accuracy ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in lesion resection time ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up after surgery, with a follow-up period of 3-24 months (median, 12 months) in the two groups. No postoperative complication such as wound infection or fracture occurred in either group during follow-up. No tumor recurrence was observed during follow-up. The VAS scores significantly improved in both groups at 3 days and 3 months after surgery when compared with preoperative value ( P<0.05). The VAS score at 3 days after surgery was significantly lower in robot-assisted surgery group than that in open surgery group ( P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in VAS scores at 3 months between the two groups ( P>0.05).
CONCLUSION:Compared with open surgery, robot-assisted resection of limb osteoid osteomas has longer operation time, but the accuracy of lesion resection improve, intraoperative blood loss reduce, and early postoperative pain is lighter. It has the advantages of precision and minimally invasive surgery.
