PurposeTo evaluate the safety and benefits of the biplanar position technique on operative time, radiation exposure, and screw placement accuracy.MethodsIn this study, we retrospectively evaluated the records of 64 patients with pelvic fractures (Tile B and C) between October 2020 and September 2021. According to the surgical methods selected by the patients, the patients were divided into a biplanar positioning technique group (biplanar group), a Ti-robot navigation group (Ti-robot group), and a traditional fluoroscopy-guided technique group (traditional group). Length of operation, blood loss, intra-operative radiation exposure fracture reduction, and the quality of screw positioning were compared among the three groups.ResultsOne hundred three screws were implanted in 64 patients (biplanar group 22, Ti-robot group 21, traditional group 21). The average operation time was significantly less in the biplanar group (26.32 ± 6.32 min) than in the traditional group (79.24 ± 11.31 min), but significantly more than in the Ti-robot group (15.81 ± 3.9 min). The radiation exposure was similar in the biplanar group (740.53 ± 185.91 cGy/cm2) and Ti-robot group (678.44 ± 127.16 cGy/cm2), both of which were significantly more than in the traditional group (2034.58 ± 494.54 cGy/cm2). The intra-operative blooding loss was similar in the biplanar group (12.76 ± 3.77 mL) and the Ti-robot group (11.92 ± 4.67 mL), both of which were significantly less than in the traditional group (29.7 ± 8.01 mL). The Screw perforation was slightly lower in the biplanar group (94.1%) than in the Ti-robot group (97.2%) but was significantly higher than in the traditional group (75.7%).ConclusionsThe biplanar positioning technique is as accurate and safe as computer-navigated systems for percutaneous iliosacral screw insertion, associated with shorter surgical time, lower intra-operative radiation exposure, and more accuracy compared to traditional fluoroscopy.