ArticleFrontiers in neurorobotics2022
Accuracy of Robotic and Frame-Based Stereotactic Neurosurgery in a Phantom Model.
Article in Frontiers in neurorobotics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robot-guided stereotactic single-stage evacuation of six intracranial abscesses: a rare case report with literature review.Chinese neurosurgical journal · 2026Article
- Functional outcomes of minimally invasive surgery treatment for patients with small supratentorial spontaneous intracerebral haematoma less than 30 mL: a propensity score matching study.Stroke and vascular neurology · 2026Article
- Advanced imaging integration in robotic neurosurgery.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Adaptation and validation of a collaborative robotic equipment applied to pediatric neurosurgery.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2025Article
- Taking the knife to neurodegeneration: a review of surgical gene therapy delivery to the CNS.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Review
- Advances, technological innovations, and future prospects in stereotactic brain biopsies.Neurosurgical review · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The development of robotic systems has provided an alternative to frame-based stereotactic procedures. The aim of this experimental phantom study was to compare the mechanical accuracy of the Robotic Surgery Assistant (ROSA) and the Leksell stereotactic frame by reducing clinical and procedural factors to a minimum. Methods: To precisely compare mechanical accuracy, a stereotactic system was chosen as reference for both methods. A thin layer CT scan with an acrylic phantom fixed to the frame and a localizer enabling the software to recognize the coordinate system was performed. For each of the five phantom targets, two different trajectories were planned, resulting in 10 trajectories. A series of five repetitions was performed, each time based on a new CT scan. Hence, 50 trajectories were analyzed for each method. X-rays of the final cannula position were fused with the planning data. The coordinates of the target point and the endpoint of the robot- or frame-guided probe were visually determined using the robotic software. The target point error (TPE) was calculated applying the Euclidian distance. The depth deviation along the trajectory and the lateral deviation were separately calculated. Results: Robotics was significantly more accurate, with an arithmetic TPE mean of 0.53 mm (95% CI 0.41-0.55 mm) compared to 0.72 mm (95% CI 0.63-0.8 mm) in stereotaxy ( Conclusion: Both the robotic and frame-based approach proved accurate. The robotic procedure showed significantly higher accuracy. For both methods, procedural factors occurring during surgery might have a more relevant impact on overall accuracy.
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.