Table 3 Summary of the published novel technologies in the locking procedure (2017–2021)
Article | Localization | Technology | Precision accuracy | First success rate | Distal locking time | Radiation exposure time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Panzica et al. [21] | Cadaver femur specimen | Robotic technique (BrainLAB VectorVision) | – | 100% (20/20) | 123.8 ± 37.5 s | 6.5 ± 3.6 s |
Han et al. [8] | Femoral fracture | Electromagnetic navigation system (SURESHOT) | – | – | 6.1 ± 1.4 min | 2.2 ± 1.1 s |
Tao et al. [23] | Femoral shaft fracture | Core drill | – | 95.24% (20/21) | 497.19 ± 82.78 s | 12.81 ± 2.64 s |
Hsu et al. [22] | Femoral model | Passive or active (robot arm) assistive device | Errors of 2.2 mm in position and 3.19° in direction | 100% (36/36) | 60.2 ± 15.6 s | 2 min |
Gao et al. [11] | Cadaver femur specimen | Electromagnetic navigation system (TianXuan-MDTS) | Errors of 1.60 ± 0.20 mm in position and 3.10 ± 0.84° in direction | 100% (6/6) | 143.17 ± 18.27 s | – |
Maleki et al. [15] | Tibia shaft fracture | Laser indicator | – | 100% (3/3) | 115.333 ± 8.993 s | – |
Gao et al. [20] | Femoral model | Laser guiding navigation device | Errors of 2.8 ± 0.5° in the coronal plane and 2.8 ± 0.5° in the horizontal plane | 95% (38/40) | 212 ± 105 s | 41 ± 15 s |