2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.07.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Minimally invasive treatment of displaced femoral shaft fractures with a teleoperated robot-assisted surgical system

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, the structure of the device was complex, and the assembly was time consuming [9,10]. Zhu et al [20] developed a teleoperated robot-assisted surgical system for the minimally invasive treatment of displaced femoral shaft fractures, but it is still an experimental model, which is predictably expensive and not ready for practical use [21]. Therefore, given these technical difficulties, many surgeons continue to consider open reduction and internal fixation [22] but do not consider the advantages of IM nailing.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, the structure of the device was complex, and the assembly was time consuming [9,10]. Zhu et al [20] developed a teleoperated robot-assisted surgical system for the minimally invasive treatment of displaced femoral shaft fractures, but it is still an experimental model, which is predictably expensive and not ready for practical use [21]. Therefore, given these technical difficulties, many surgeons continue to consider open reduction and internal fixation [22] but do not consider the advantages of IM nailing.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, the structure of the device was complex, and the assembly was time consuming [8,9]. Zhu et al [15] developed a teleoperated robot-assisted surgical system for the minimally invasive treatment of displaced femoral shaft fractures, but it is still an experimental model, which is predictably expensive and not ready for practical use [16]. Therefore, because of these technical di culties, many surgeons continue to consider open reduction and internal xation [17] but do not consider the advantages of IM nailing.…”
Section: Various Closed Reduction Devices Have Been Developed For Thementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to prevent the robot from moving too fast, the velocity regulation of the LGC controller has been introduced at every sampling time ΔT, as shown in Figure 5 . If the distance |ΔX| between the current pose and the target pose of the distal segment is larger than |V vf |·ΔT, the guiding speed is regulated to maintain a predetermined constant speed |V vf |, as shown in Equation 10. If |ΔX| is less than |V vf |·ΔT, the robot's pose is updated to the target pose, as shown in Equation 11.…”
Section: Linear Guidance Constraints For Fracture Reduction Surgerymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3 To solve these issues, robot-assisted fracture reduction (RAFR) systems have been recently developed. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Most of these systems are consisted of robot systems, navigations, and medical devices, and they are generally operated remotely. [4][5][6][7][8][9] To alleviate the surgeon's control burden, some systems are developed to operate automatically, so that the robot follows the fracture reduction path that is planned based on a 3D bone image model using their anatomical knowledge and experience pre-or intra-operatively.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%