• Xiaoxu Zhao, Yonggang Fan, and Juwu Chen.
• The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, 450052, People's Republic of China.
• Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021 Jan 1; 141 (1): 45-53.

BackgroundSome studies have reported that the electromagnetic navigation (EN) technique is better than the free-hand (FH) method. Nevertheless, there are few clinical trials. In recent years, several clinical trials have been conducted, providing sufficient information to compare the two methods.MethodsWe compared the FH and EN techniques (SURESHOT, Smith and Nephew, Inc., Memphis, TN) in terms of the distal locking time, exposure time, first success rate, healing time and operative time. We comprehensively searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases according to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then we extracted data for specific variables from these reports. The risk of bias was assessed. Stata 13.0 was used for analysis.ResultsNine studies involving 579 patients were pooled in this study. The meta-analysis showed that EN was associated with a shorter distal locking time (P = 0.001) and exposure time (P = 0.001) than FH performed by surgeons who are not proficient in using the FH technique. No significant differences were found in the first success rate (P = 0.231), healing time (P = 0.09) or operative time (P = 0.510).ConclusionThe EN technique has the advantages of a shorter distal locking time and smaller amount of ionizing radiation exposure compared with the FH technique.

19 keywords...

hide…