ArticlePloS one2019
Experimental investigations of a manually versus an electrically driven skull drill for bedside usage.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of an Electrical Cranial Access Drill With Autostop Technology to a Traditional Hand Crank Cranial Access Drill.Neurosurgery practice · 2025Article
- Safety Analysis of a New Portable Electrical Drill With a Smart Autostop Mechanism for Bedside Cranial Procedures.Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2023Article
- Commentary: Safety Analysis of a New Portable Electrical Drill With a Smart Autostop Mechanism for Bedside Cranial Procedures.Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2023Article
- Power Drill Craniostomy for Bedside Intracranial Access in Traumatic Brain Injury Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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
backgroundManual skull drilling is an old but in modern neurosurgery still established procedure which can be applied quickly and universally in emergency situations. Electrical drilling requires more complex equipment and is usually reserved to the Operating Room (OR). It also seems desirable to apply an electrical drill for bedside usage but a suitable product does not exist so far.
methodOur experimental study using a manually and an electrically driven skull drill included a total of 40 holes drilled into synthetic biomechanical sheets. Half of the holes were produced with a prototype electrical drilling machine of the company Kaiser Technology and half of them with a traditional manual drill. Different drilling parameters such as the geometry of the borehole, the drilling forces and the drilling vibrations were captured during all experiments.
resultsThe electrical drilling needed higher vertical force by the operators and a longer time to penetrate the sheet. A reason was the relatively lower rotational speed provided by this particular drill. When drilling electrically the vibrations were substantially less which in turn led to a more precise shape of the holes (revealed by observation via a microscope).
conclusionsThe electrification of bedside drilling can in principle enable emergency craniostomies to be performed with greater ease and accuracy. The power of the electric drive, however, must be at least equivalent to the power of the traditional manual drill. Otherwise, the vertical forces exerted on the scull by the operator become inhibitive. The challenge is to combine cost-efficiency and re-sterilizability of an electrically driven drilling machine which at the same time is small and simple enough to qualify for emergency applications.
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.