The treatment of complex acetabular fractures with Union Plate combined with robotic placement of the infra-acetabular and posterior column screw
10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20250209-00121
- VernacularTitle:Union Plate联合机器人辅助置入后柱螺钉及二窗螺钉固定治疗复杂髋臼骨折
- Author:
Jianan CHEN
1
;
Peiran XUE
1
;
Lulu TANG
1
;
Keda YU
1
;
Xiaodong GUO
1
;
Kaifang CHEN
1
Author Information
1. 华中科技大学同济医学院附属协和医院骨科，武汉 430022
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Acetabulum;
Fractures, bone;
Fracture fixation, internal;
Robot;
Bone screws
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics
2025;45(8):469-477
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the efficacy of Union Plate combined with robotic placement of infra-acetabular and posterior column screws and common reconstruction plate combined with freehand placement of infra-acetabular and posterior column screws in the treatment of complex acetabular fractures.Methods:The data of 42 patients with complex acetabular fractures treated in Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology from June 2020 to June 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 22 patients were treated with Union Plate combined with robotic placement of posterior column screws and infra-acetabular screws (Union Plate robot group). 20 cases were treated with common reconstruction plate combined with posterior column screw and infra-acetabular screw fixation by hand (reconstruction plate freehand group). The Union Plate robot group included 16 males and 6 females, aged 43.7±11.6 years (range, 24-67 years). Letournel-Judet classification: 14 cases of double-column fractures, 5 cases of anterior column with posterior semi-transverse fractures, 3 cases of "T" -shaped fractures. There were 15 males and 5 females in the reconstruction plate freehand group, aged 42.9±12.0 years (range, 22-66 years). Letournel-Judet classification: 15 cases of double-column fractures, 3 cases of anterior column with posterior semi-transverse fractures, 2 cases of "T" -shaped fractures. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative fluoroscopy times, frame screw placement time, fracture healing time, perfect frame screw placement rate (grade 0 rate) assessed according to the Lonstein criteria, reduction quality assessed according to the Matta criteria, the modified Merle d'Aubign-Postel score and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.Results:All 42 patients were followed up for 10 to 30 months, with an average of 13 months. The fracture healing time was 3.4±0.4 months in the Union Plate robot group and 3.6±0.4 months in the reconstruction plate freehand group, with no statistical significance ( t=2.179, P=0.035). The operative time and intraoperative blood loss of the Union Plate robot group were 138.3±30.7 min and 735.7±159.8 ml, respectively, which were lower than 163.9±48.7 min and 843.5±181.1 ml in the reconstruction plate freehand group. The differences were statistically significant ( P<0.05). The time and intraoperative fluoroscopy times of the Union Plate robot group were 19.9±3.2 min and 17.1±4.9 times, respectively, which were less than 42.5±6.7 min and 45.4±4.9 times of the reconstruction plate freehand group, and the differences were statistically significant ( P<0.05). According to the Lonstein evaluation, there were 42 cases of class 0 and 2 cases of class I in the Union Plate robot group, and the perfect frame screw placement rate was 96%(42/44). There were 30 cases of grade 0, 8 cases of grade I and 2 cases of grade II in the reconstruction plate freehand group, and the perfect frame screw placement rate was 75%(30/40). There was significant difference between the two groups (χ 2=7.426, P=0.024). According to the Matta criteria, 15 cases of Union Plate robot group were excellent, 4 cases were good, and 3 cases were poor, with an excellent and good rate of 86%(19/22). In the reconstruction plate free hand group, 13 cases were excellent, 4 cases were good, and 3 cases were poor, with an excellent and good rate of 85%(17/20). There was no significant difference between the two groups (χ 2=0.048, P=0.976). At the last follow-up visit, the modified Merle d'Aubign-Postel score of the Union Plate robot group was 16.9±1.7 points and that of the reconstruction plate freehand group was 16.5±2.2 points, with no statistical significance ( t=0.593, P=0.557). In the Union Plate robot group, wound fat liquefaction and lateral femoral cutaneous nerve injury occurred in 1 case, the complication rate was 9%(2/22). There were 4 cases of fat liquefaction, 1 case of lateral femoral cutaneous nerve injury, and 1 case of traumatic hip arthritis in the reconstruction plate freehand group. The complication rate was 30%(6/20), and the difference in complication rate was not statistically significant (χ 2=1.769, P=0.183). Conclusions:The clinical efficacy of Union Plate combined with robotic placement of posterior column screws and infra-acetabular screws in the treatment of complex acetabular fractures is comparable to that of reconstruction plate combined with freehand placement of posterior column screws and infra-acetabular screws. However, the use of Union Plate combined with robotic placement of frame screws can shorten the operative time and the time of frame screw placement. The amount of intraoperative blood loss and intraoperative fluoroscopy times were reduced, and the accuracy of frame screw placement was higher.
