Key result
TiRobot assistance for distal locking of femoral intramedullary nails significantly improved the first-attempt success rate compared to conventional frames (90.9% vs 54.5%, P<.05).
Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare the efficacy of TiRobot assistance with traditional external aiming frames in distal locking of femoral intramedullary nails.
Does TiRobot assistance improve the first-attempt success rate of distal locking in patients undergoing femoral intramedullary nailing?
Cohort (n=44)
Does TiRobot assistance improve the first-attempt success rate of distal locking in patients undergoing femoral intramedullary nailing?
Absolute Event Rate: 90.9% vs 54.5%
p-value: p=<.05
TiRobot assistance during distal locking of femoral intramedullary nails significantly improves first-attempt success rates, reduces procedural time, blood loss, and radiation exposure compared to conventional methods.
TiRobot assistance may improve distal locking metrics; leaves open whether benefits hold in prospective randomized trials.
This study compares the efficacy of the TiRobot with traditional external aiming frames in distal locking of femoral intramedullary nails. A cohort of 44 patients, who underwent intramedullary nailing treatment for femoral fractures between October 2020 and October 2023, was retrospectively analyzed. Participants were allocated into 2 groups. The observation group (n = 22) received TiRobot assistance for distal locking of femoral intramedullary nails, and the control group (n = 22) was managed using conventional external aiming frames. Key variables included the first-attempt success rate of distal locking, number of fluoroscopic exposures, time to achieve locking, and volume of intraoperative blood loss. The observation group, assisted by TiRobot, achieved a significantly higher first-attempt success rate of 90.9%, as compared to 54.5% in the control group. All initial failures were subsequently managed manually, with a statistically significant difference noted between the groups (P < .05). Furthermore, the observation group required fewer fluoroscopic exposures (11.00 ± 2.93) than the control group (19.68 ± 16.28) (P < .05). The time to achieve locking was significantly shorter in the observation group (14.05 ± 3.37 min) compared to the control group (24.41 ± 14.93 min) (P < .05). The volume of intraoperative blood loss was reduced in the observation group (54.55 ± 5.54 mL) versus the control group (60.45 ± 11.01 mL) (P < .05). The incorporation of TiRobot in the distal locking of femoral intramedullary nailing prominently enhances the first-attempt success rate, reduces the procedural time and intraoperative blood loss, and diminishes the radiation exposure for both healthcare providers and patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cai et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in femoral fractures (n=44). TiRobot assistance vs. conventional external aiming frames was evaluated on first-attempt success rate of distal locking (p=<.05). TiRobot assistance for distal locking of femoral intramedullary nails significantly improved the first-attempt success rate compared to conventional frames (90.9% vs 54.5%, P<.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: