Objective To retrospectively analyze the effects of nerve block anesthesia versus general anesthesia on intertrochanteric fracture in the elderly. Methods The 104 elderly inpatients undergoing closed reduction and intramedullary nailing for the treatment of femoral intertrochanteric fractures were recruited into this study at Department of Orthopedics ,Xiangya Hospital ,Central South University from January 2015 to June 2017.Medical records were collected and analyzed by SPSS 16.0 or GraphPad Prism 6.0 software. Results A total of 104 patients were divided into general anesthesia group(n= 48 )and nerve block anesthesia group (n= 56 ). There was no statistical difference in the demographic characteristics between the two groups. The changes in heart rate ,maximum changes of systolic/diastolic blood pressures ,and infusion volume during surgery were lower in the nerve block anesthesia group than in the general anesthesia group [(12.7 ± 7.3)vs. (18.1 ± 7.8)beats/min ,(22.5 ± 8.8/12.2 ± 7.5)mmHg vs. (34.3 ± 7.9/21.6 ± 6.6)mmHg ,(792.9 ± 387.0)ml vs. (1 083.0 ± 445.5)ml ,respectively ,t=3.64 ,7.14 ,6.73 ,5.16 ,all P＜0.01]. There was no statistically significant difference between two groups in other perioperative data and the number of deaths at three months and one year after surgery. Conclusions As compared with the general anesthesia ,the nerve block anesthesia has less effects on the heart rate ,less maximum changes of systolic and diastolic blood pressures ,and less infusion volume during surgery ,and has no significant increase in postoperative mortality ,which is safe and worthy of further promotion.

Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted sacroiliac screw internal fixation for posterior pelvic ring fractures.Methods:China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Chinese Medical Journal Full-text Database, PubMed, Web of Science and ScienceDirect were searched for literature on robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-assisted sacroiliac screw internal fixation for posterior pelvic ring fractures. The search time was from the establishment of each database to March 2023. Meta-analysis was performed on the included literature. The random-effects model was used when the heterogeneity between groups was large, and the fixed-effects model was used when the heterogeneity between groups was small.Results:A total of 15 studies were included in the meta-analysis, including 465 patients in the robot-assisted group and 396 patients in the fluoroscopy-assisted group. Meta-analysis showed that the number of fluoroscopies [ SMD=-3.12, 95% CI (-4.34, -1.89), P<0.001], the number of guide pin adjustments [ SMD=-3.75, 95% CI (-6.77, -0.72), P=0.015], intraoperative blood loss [ SMD=-0.83, 95% CI (-1.18, -0.49), P<0.001], and operative time [ SMD=-2.59, 95% CI (-4.11, -1.08), P<0.001] were smaller than those in the fluoroscopy-assisted group. The rate of excellent screw implantation [ OR=10.13, 95% CI (3.67,27.98), P<0.001] of the robot-assisted was larger than the fluoroscopy-assisted group. There was no significant difference in Majeed functional score [ SMD=0.28, 95% CI (-0.0003, 0.55), P=0.050] and fracture healing time [ SMD=-0.14, 95% CI (-0.46, 0.17), P=0.367] between the two groups. Conclusion:Robot-assisted percutaneous sacroiliac screw fixation for posterior pelvic ring fractures has the advantages of less fluoroscopy, less guide pin adjustment, less intraoperative blood loss, shorter operation time, and higher rate of excellent screw position. However, there is no difference in Majeed score and fracture healing time between robot-assisted percutaneous sacroiliac screw fixation and fluoroscopy-assisted percutaneous sacroiliac screw fixation.