A comparative cadaveric study for percutaneous scaphoid fixation: robotic vs freehand

Purposes To compare the robotic-assisted and the traditional freehand percutaneous scaphoid fixation in number of guidewire attempts, duration of fluoroscopy time, amount of radiation dose, and screw centrality. Methods Twenty cadaveric specimens were randomized into either the robotic or freehand group. The scaphoids in both groups were fixed by either the same attending or resident from our hand surgery department. The operation duration, amount of radiation from intraoperative fluoroscopy, total fluoroscopy time, and the number of guidewire attempts were documented and compared. Postoperatively, all the specimens had a computed tomography (CT) scan performed, and the difference in the final position of the screw and the central axis of the scaphoid was examined. Results In the robotic group, all the guide wires were satisfactorily positioned within a single attempt, while the median number of attempts in the traditional freehand group was 18 (quaternion 14–65). This also meant that the surgeon in the robotic group experienced significantly lower radiation exposure dose and time as compared to the freehand group. There were no significant differences in the final screw position as compared to the central axis of the scaphoid in both groups. Although there was no difference in surgeon performance in the robotic group, the operative time for the attending was significantly lower as compared to the resident in the freehand group. Conclusion Robotic-assisted surgery for scaphoid fracture fixation is superior to the traditional freehand method as it facilitates accurate screw placement with lower radiation exposure and fewer guide wire attempts.