Comparison of Outcomes Following TiRobot-Assisted Sacroiliac Screw Fixation with Bone Grafting and Traditional Screw Fixation without Bone Grafting for Unstable Osteoporotic Sacral Fracture: A Single-Center Retrospective Study of 33 Patients

BACKGROUND: This retrospective study from a single center aimed to compare patient outcomes following TiRobot-assisted sacroiliac screw fixation and bone grafting with traditional screw fixation without bone grafting in 33 patients with unstable osteoporotic sacral fracture (UOSF). MATERIAL/METHODS: Patients with UOSF were included and divided into 2 groups: a TiRobot-assisted surgical group with 18 patients (robot-aided sacroiliac screw fixation and bone grafting) and a standard surgical group with 15 patients (free-hand screw fixation without bone grafting). T values of bone mineral density (BMD) ≤-2.5 standard deviation (SD) were diagnosed as osteoporosis. Screw positioning and fracture healing time were evaluated. Functional outcomes were investigated at the final follow-up. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in screw positioning; however, there were satisfactory positioning rates in 94.4% (17/18) of patients in the TiRobot-assisted surgical group and 73.3% (11/15) in the standard surgical group. The advantages with TiRobot on surgical time of screw placement, fluoroscopy frequency, and total drilling times were noted (P=0.000). The nonunion rates were 5.6% (1/18) in the TiRobot-assisted surgical group and 33.3% (5/15) in the standard group (P=0.039). Healing time in the union cases had a significant difference (P=0.031). Functional outcome scores in the TiRobot-assisted surgical group were superior to that in the standard group (P=0.014). CONCLUSIONS: The findings showed that TiRobot-assisted sacroiliac screw fixation and bone grafting was a safe and effective surgical treatment option that had a reduced radiation dose and improved fracture healing, when compared with standard screw fixation without bone grafting.