SynthesisNeurosurgical review2021
Automated neurosurgical stereotactic planning for intraoperative use: a comprehensive review of the literature and perspectives.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Automatic Path-Planning Techniques for Minimally Invasive Stereotactic Neurosurgical Procedures-A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Pooled it
- Voxel-based evaluation of hemorrhage risk in brain biopsies.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Curved trajectories in stereotactic neurosurgery: is it feasible?Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Automated Volumetric Milling Area Planning for Acoustic Neuroma Surgery via Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The creation of intracranial stereotactic trajectories, from entry point to target point, is still mostly done manually by the neurosurgeon. The development of automated stereotactic planning tools has been described in the literature. This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness of stereotactic planning procedure automation and develop tools for patients undergoing neurosurgical stereotactic procedures. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to September 1, 2019, at the exception of Google Scholar (from 1 January 2010 to September 1, 2019) in French and English. Eligible studies included all studies proposing automated stereotactic planning. A total of 1543 studies were screened. Forty-two studies were included in the systematic review, including 18 (42.9%) conference papers. The surgical procedures planned automatically were mainly deep brain stimulation (n = 14, 33.3%), stereoelectroencephalography (n = 12, 28.6%), and not specified (n = 10, 23.8%). The most frequently used surgical constraints to plan the trajectory were blood vessels (n = 32, 76.2%), cerebral sulci (n = 27, 64.3%), and cerebral ventricles (n = 23, 54.8%). The distance from blood vessels ranged from 1.96 to 4.78 mm for manual trajectories and from 2.47 to 7.0 mm for automated trajectories. At least one neurosurgeon was involved in 36 studies (85.7%). The automated stereotactic trajectory was preferred in 75.4% of the studied cases (range 30-92.9). Only 3 (7.1%) studies were multicentric. No study reported prospective use of the planning software. Stereotactic planning automation is a promising tool to provide valuable stereotactic trajectories for clinical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32430559What 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.