Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Robot-Assisted vs. Freehand Screw Placement in Femoral Neck Fractures: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

TL;DR

A systematic review and meta-analysis compares robot-assisted and freehand techniques for femoral neck fracture surgery, finding robotic methods more precise and effective but noting limitations in generalizability and long-term data.

Contribution

This study provides an updated meta-analysis showing robot-assisted screw placement improves outcomes in femoral neck fractures while highlighting barriers to adoption.

Findings

Robot-assisted techniques improved union rates and reduced union time compared to freehand methods.

Operative times were shorter, with less blood loss and fewer fluoroscopy uses in robot-assisted cases.

Robot-assisted procedures had lower risks of femoral neck necrosis and better functional outcomes.

Abstract

Background: Femoral neck fractures pose significant surgical challenges with high morbidity and mortality. Traditional freehand screw placement often yields variable outcomes. Recent robotic advancements offer a promising alternative with enhanced precision. Methods: This systematic review compares the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted versus freehand techniques. A comprehensive literature search across multiple databases up to July 2024 included studies comparing both techniques. Primary outcomes were the union rate and time, functional outcomes, operative time, intraoperative parameters, and complication rates. Meta-regression analyses identified treatment response determinants. Results: Twenty-four studies (1437 patients) were included. Robot-assisted screw placement significantly improved the union rate, reduced the union time, and showed superior functional outcomes. Additionally, it resulted in shorter operative times, less intraoperative blood loss, and fewer instances of fluoroscopy and guide pin insertion. The risk of femoral neck necrosis was notably lower with robotic assistance. Meta-regression highlighted the robot type, patient age, and sample size as significant factors. Conclusions: Despite the promise of robot-assisted screw placement, limitations exist. The evidence being mainly from China raises concerns about generalizability. The lack of long-term follow-up data hinders assessment of technique durability. Unreported surgeon expertise levels and learning curves affect result validity. High initial costs and steep learning curves of robotic systems also present barriers to widespread adoption.

Figures