The learning curve in robot-assisted pelvic canal screw placement: evaluating procedure efficiency, technical fluency, and screw accuracy

Abstract Background Robot-assisted surgery has shown promise in improving the accuracy of pelvic canal screw placement, yet the learning curve associated with this technology remains underexplored. This study aims to quantitatively evaluate the learning curve for robot-assisted pelvic canal screw placement, focusing on procedure efficiency, technical fluency, and screw accuracy. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 1274 patients who underwent robot-assisted pelvic screw placement performed by a single surgeon and a consistent surgical team between January 2020 and May 2025. Patients were categorized into six groups based on screw type and trajectory: S1 screw (Group A), S2 screw (Group B), anterior column antegrade screw (Group C), anterior column retrograde screw (Group D), lateral compression type II (LC-II) antegrade screw (Group E), and LC-II retrograde screw (Group F). To evaluate the learning curve, the first 30 consecutive cases from each group were chronologically and equally divided into initial, middle, and final subgroups. Primary outcome measures, including intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency, screw planning time, number of guidewire adjustments, and total operative time, were recorded and compared across these subgroups. The learning curve was analyzed using the case sequence number (1–30) from each group as the independent variable and the primary outcome measures as dependent variables. Postoperative screw accuracy was assessed for all placed screws using the Smith grading system. Results Overall screw placement accuracy was 98.6%. Significant improvements in all primary outcome measures were observed between the initial and middle subgroups ( P < 0.05), with stabilization thereafter. No significant differences were noted between the middle and final subgroups ( P > 0.05). The learning curve reached a plateau after approximately 5 to 15 cases, which varied by screw type: S1 screws (5 cases), S2 screws (7 cases), anterior column antegrade screws (10 cases), anterior column retrograde screws (12 cases), LC-II antegrade screws (10 cases), and LC-II retrograde screws (15 cases). Conclusion Robot-assisted pelvic canal screw placement is highly accurate, with a quantifiable learning curve of 5–15 cases to achieve procedural proficiency. These findings provide a benchmark for training programs and support the role of robotic technology in standardizing complex pelvic fracture surgeries.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European journal of medical research
Published
2026-03-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-026-04202-5
Primary Topic
Pelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The learning curve in robot-assisted pelvic canal screw placement: evaluating procedure efficiency, technical fluency, and screw accuracy

Jinlong Zhang, Wenhui Zhang, Huiping Tai, Haiye Gan et al.
European journal of medical research
Pelvic and Acetabular Injuries
article

The learning curve in robot-assisted pelvic canal screw placement: evaluating procedure efficiency, technical fluency, and screw accuracy

Jinlong Zhang, Wenhui Zhang, Huiping Tai, Haiye Gan, Xiangling Shen, Zhitao Guo, Hui Zhang
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Robot-assisted surgery has shown promise in improving the accuracy of pelvic canal screw placement, yet the learning curve associated with this technology remains underexplored. This study aims to quantitatively evaluate the learning curve for robot-assisted pelvic canal screw placement, focusing on procedure efficiency, technical fluency, and screw accuracy. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 1274 patients who underwent robot-assisted pelvic screw placement performed by a single surgeon and a consistent surgical team between January 2020 and May 2025. Patients were categorized into six groups based on screw type and trajectory: S1 screw (Group A), S2 screw (Group B), anterior column antegrade screw (Group C), anterior column retrograde screw (Group D), lateral compression type II (LC-II) antegrade screw (Group E), and LC-II retrograde screw (Group F). To evaluate the learning curve, the first 30 consecutive cases from each group were chronologically and equally divided into initial, middle, and final subgroups. Primary outcome measures, including intraoperative fluoroscopy frequency, screw planning time, number of guidewire adjustments, and total operative time, were recorded and compared across these subgroups. The learning curve was analyzed using the case sequence number (1–30) from each group as the independent variable and the primary outcome measures as dependent variables. Postoperative screw accuracy was assessed for all placed screws using the Smith grading system. Results Overall screw placement accuracy was 98.6%. Significant improvements in all primary outcome measures were observed between the initial and middle subgroups ( P < 0.05), with stabilization thereafter. No significant differences were noted between the middle and final subgroups ( P > 0.05). The learning curve reached a plateau after approximately 5 to 15 cases, which varied by screw type: S1 screws (5 cases), S2 screws (7 cases), anterior column antegrade screws (10 cases), anterior column retrograde screws (12 cases), LC-II antegrade screws (10 cases), and LC-II retrograde screws (15 cases). Conclusion Robot-assisted pelvic canal screw placement is highly accurate, with a quantifiable learning curve of 5–15 cases to achieve procedural proficiency. These findings provide a benchmark for training programs and support the role of robotic technology in standardizing complex pelvic fracture surgeries.

European journal of medical research
Gansu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CN), Gansu Provincial Hospital (CN)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
Pelvic and Acetabular Injuries
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.