ReviewRambam Maimonides medical journal2017
The Development of Robotic Technology in Cardiac and Vascular Interventions.
Review in Rambam Maimonides medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- From intravascular imaging to adaptive vascular care: intelligent photonics and digital twins in panvascular disease.Light, science & applications · 2026Review
- Feasibility and Safety of the ETcath200 Robotic PCI System for Complex Coronary Lesions: A Prospective Single-Center Study.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Procedural and Clinical Outcomes of Second-generation Robotic-assisted versus Manual Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A 1-year Follow-up Study.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Robot-Assisted Cardiovascular Interventions.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Review
- Safety and feasibility study of a novel robotic system in an in vivo porcine vascular model.CVIR endovascular · 2024Article
- Peripheral arterial disease treatment planning using noninvasive and invasive imaging methods.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2023Article
- Robotically-assisted neuro-endovascular procedures: Single-Center Experience and a Review of the Literature.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2023Review
- Technical and Clinical Progress on Robot-Assisted Endovascular Interventions: A Review.Micromachines · 2023Review
- Robotic-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2018Review
- Robotic percutaneous coronary intervention (R-PCI): Time to focus on the pros and cons.Indian heart journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic technology has been used in cardiovascular medicine for over a decade, and over that period its use has been expanded to interventional cardiology and percutaneous coronary and peripheral vascular interventions. The safety and feasibility of robotically assisted interventions has been demonstrated in multiple studies ranging from simple to complex coronary lesions, and in the treatment of iliofemoral and infrapopliteal disease. These studies have shown a reduction in operator exposure to harmful ionizing radiation, and the use of robotics has the intuitive benefit of alleviating the occupational hazard of operator orthopedic injuries. In addition to the interventional operator benefits, robotically assisted intervention has the potential to also be beneficial for patients by allowing more accurate lesion length measurement, stent placement, and patient radiation exposure; however, more investigation is required to elucidate these benefits fully.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.