Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35296166›Full record

ReviewInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences2023

Robotically-assisted neuro-endovascular procedures: Single-Center Experience and a Review of the Literature.

Matias Costa, Zachary Tataryn, Abdullah Alobaid, Clifford Pierre, Mohammed Basamh, Mohamed Somji, Yince Loh, Akshal Patel, Stephen Monteith

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. In vitro comparison of manual and robotic endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Robotic-assisted carotid artery stenting with R-OneInterventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2025
    Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Matias Costa214855Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Zachary Tataryn214855Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4697-4244
Abdullah AlobaidNational Neurosciences Institute, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Clifford Pierre214855Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Mohammed Basamh214855Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Mohamed Somji214855Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Yince Loh214855Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Akshal Patel214855Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Stephen Monteith214855Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRobotics could expand treatment of rapidly progressive pathologies such as acute ischemic stroke, with the potential to provide populations in need prompt access to neuro-endovascular procedures.

methodsRobotically-assisted (RA) neuro-endovascular procedures (RANPs) performed at our institution were retrospectively examined (RA-group, RG). A control group of manual neuro-endovascular procedures was selected (manual group, MG). Total operating room (OR) time, procedural time, contrast media use, fluoroscopy time, conversion from RA to manual control, procedural success, and complication rates were compared. A learning curve was identified.

resultsForty-one (41) RANPs were analyzed. Ages ranged from 20-82 y.o. Indications included diagnostic cerebral angiography (37), extracranial carotid artery stenting (3), and transverse sinus stent (1). Total OR time was longer in RG (median 86 vs. 71 min, p < 0.01). Procedural time (median 56 vs. 45 min, p = 0.12), fluoroscopy time (median 12 vs. 12 min, p = 0.69) and contrast media usage (82 vs. 92 ml, p = 0.54) were not significantly different. Patient radiation exposure was similar, considering similar fluoroscopy times. Radiation exposure and lead apron use were virtually absent for the main surgeon in RG. Procedural success was 83% and conversion from RA to manual control was 17% in RG. No treatment-related complications occurred. A learning curve showed that, after the fifth procedure, procedural times reduced and stabilized.

conclusionsThis series may contribute to further demonstrating the safety and feasibility of RANPs. RANPs can potentially reduce radiation exposure and physical burden for health personnel, expand acute cerebrovascular treatment to underserved areas, and enhance telementoring. Prospective studies are necessary for results to be generalized.

Indexed as

Carotid StenosisEndovascular ProceduresIschemic StrokeRobotic Surgical ProceduresContrast MediaHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesStentsTreatment OutcomeContrast MediacerebralEndovascularneurovascularroboticsstroke

Identifiers

PMID35296166
PMCPMC10152820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.