Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34429470›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2021

Comparison of robotic and manual implantation of intracerebral electrodes: a single-centre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial.

Vejay N Vakharia, Roman Rodionov, Anna Miserocchi, Andrew W McEvoy, Aidan O'Keeffe, Alejandro Granados, Shahrzad Shapoori, Rachel Sparks, Sebastien Ourselin, John S Duncan

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Digital Twins and Health Care: an Umbrella Review.Journal of medical systems · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Usefulness of Robotic Stereotactic Assistance (ROSANeurologia medico-chirurgica · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Current State of Robotics in Interventional Radiology.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2023
    Review
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Vejay N VakhariaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, Institute of Neurology, University College London, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK. v.vakharia@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9476-4225
Roman RodionovDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, Institute of Neurology, University College London, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.
Anna MiserocchiDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, Institute of Neurology, University College London, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.
Andrew W McEvoyDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, Institute of Neurology, University College London, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.
Aidan O'KeeffeDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.
Alejandro GranadosSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Shahrzad ShapooriDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, Institute of Neurology, University College London, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.
Rachel SparksSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Sebastien OurselinSchool of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
John S DuncanDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Epilepsy, Institute of Neurology, University College London, 33 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.
Chalfonts and Gerrards Cross Hospital · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT106882
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has been a significant rise in robotic trajectory guidance devices that have been utilised for stereotactic neurosurgical procedures. These devices have significant costs and associated learning curves. Previous studies reporting devices usage have not undertaken prospective parallel-group comparisons before their introduction, so the comparative differences are unknown. We study the difference in stereoelectroencephalography electrode implantation time between a robotic trajectory guidance device (iSYS1) and manual frameless implantation (PAD) in patients with drug-refractory focal epilepsy through a single-blinded randomised control parallel-group investigation of SEEG electrode implantation, concordant with CONSORT statement. Thirty-two patients (18 male) completed the trial. The iSYS1 returned significantly shorter median operative time for intracranial bolt insertion, 6.36 min (95% CI 5.72-7.07) versus 9.06 min (95% CI 8.16-10.06), p = 0.0001. The PAD group had a better median target point accuracy 1.58 mm (95% CI 1.38-1.82) versus 1.16 mm (95% CI 1.01-1.33), p = 0.004. The mean electrode implantation angle error was 2.13° for the iSYS1 group and 1.71° for the PAD groups (p = 0.023). There was no statistically significant difference for any other outcome. Health policy and hospital commissioners should consider these differences in the context of the opportunity cost of introducing robotic devices.Trial registration: ISRCTN17209025 ( https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17209025 ).

Indexed as

Electrodes, ImplantedAdultAgedDeep Brain StimulationEpilepsyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsRobotic Surgical Procedures

Identifiers

PMID34429470
PMCPMC8385074
OpenAlexW3160496217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.