ArticlePloS one2018
Frame-based stereotactic biopsies using an intraoperative MR-scanner are as safe and effective as conventional stereotactic procedures.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Evaluation of feasibility accuracy and safety after 79 O-ARM based stereotactic brain biopsies.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Frame-based stereotactic biopsies of brainstem lesions - Monocentric comparison of the transfrontal and the suboccipital-transcerebellar approach over a 16-year period.Neurosurgical review · 2024Article
- Stereotactic frame-based biopsy of infratentorial lesions via the suboccipital-transcerebellar approach with the Zamorano-Duchovny stereotactic system-a retrospective analysis of 79 consecutive cases.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- Deep learning aided preoperative diagnosis of primary central nervous system lymphoma.iScience · 2024Article
- The molecular diagnostic yield of frame-based stereotactic biopsies in the age of precision neuro-oncology: a cross-sectional study.Acta neurochirurgica · 2023Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Pineal Germinoma: From Eye to Brain.Eye and brain · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFrame-based stereotactic biopsy (FBSB) is a minimally-invasive and effective procedure for the diagnosis of brain lesions and will likely gain clinical importance. Since FBSB procedures comprise a variety of imaging and sampling methods, it is necessary to compare the safety and effectiveness of individual techniques.
objectiveTo assess the safety and effectiveness of FBSB using 1.5T iMRI as a one-stop procedure under general anesthesia without intraoperative histological examination.
methodsIn this single-center, retrospective analysis, 500 consecutive FBSBs using iMRI were compared to a historic control of 100 biopsies with traditional workflows (computed tomography (CT) with MRI image fusion). All procedures were performed under general anesthesia. Data on surgical procedures, pre- and postoperative neurologic patient status, complications and diagnostic yield were extracted from clinical records.
resultsComplication rates and diagnostic yield showed no significant differences between both groups. Mortality was 0.6%, 95% CI = [0.12%, 1.74%], in the iMRI and 0.0% [0.00%, 3.62%], in the control group with a morbidity of 5.4% [3.6%, 7.8%] and 6.0% [2.2%, 12.6%] and a diagnostic yield of 96.8% [94.9%, 98.2%] and 96.0% [90.1%, 98.9%]. Mean procedure duration was 124 [121, 127] minutes using iMRI and 112 [106, 118] minutes in the control group.
conclusionFBSB using 1.5T iMRI under general anesthesia is a safe and effective procedure and is equivalent to traditional stereotactic workflows with respect to complication rate and diagnostic yield.
Indexed as
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.