ArticleNeurologia medico-chirurgica2022
Primary Experiences with Robot-assisted Navigation-based Frameless Stereo-electroencephalography: Higher Accuracy than Neuronavigation-guided Manual Adjustment.
Article in Neurologia medico-chirurgica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Usefulness of Robotic Stereotactic Assistance (ROSANeurologia medico-chirurgica · 2024Pooled it
- Robot-assisted vs. manually guided stereoelectroencephalography for refractory epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2023Pooled it
- A 2-Year Experience of Robot-Assisted Epilepsy Surgery Using a New Cranial Robotic System With Optical Tracking: Variables Influencing Accuracy and Complications.Neurosurgery practice · 2026Article
- Robotic Arm Alignment System for Electrode Implantation in Invasive Epilepsy Monitoring: Clinical Experience and Accuracy in a Consecutive Patient Series with Comparison to the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical experiences and accuracy of stereoelectroencephalography using the robotic arm Cirq.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Image-guided biopsy of intracranial lesions in children, with a small robotic device: a case series.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2024Article
- Real-time display of intracranial subdural electrodes and the brain surface during an electrode implantation procedure using permeable film.Surgical neurology international · 2024Article
- Intraparenchymal and Subarachnoid Hemorrhage in Stereotactic Electroencephalography Caused by Indirect Adjacent Arterial Injury: Illustrative Case.Brain sciences · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of robot-assisted frameless stereotactic electroencephalography (SEEG) is becoming more common. Among available robotic arms, Stealth Autoguide (SA) (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) functions as an optional instrument of the neuronavigation system. The aims of this study were to present our primary experiences with SEEG using SA and to compare the accuracy of implantation between SA and navigation-guided manual adjustment (MA). Seventeen electrodes from two patients who underwent SEEG with SA and 18 electrodes from four patients with MA were retrospectively reviewed. We measured the distance between the planned location and the actual location at entry (De) and the target (Dt) in each electrode. The length of the trajectory did not show a strong correlation with Dt in SA (Pearson's correlation coefficient [r] = 0.099, p = 0.706) or MA (r = 0.233, p = 0.351). De and Dt in SA were shorter than those in MA (1.99 ± 0.90 vs 4.29 ± 1.92 mm, p = 0.0002; 3.59 ± 2.22 vs 5.12 ± 1.40 mm, p = 0.0065, respectively). SA offered higher accuracy than MA both at entry and target. Surgical times per electrode were 38.9 and 32 min in the two patients with SA and ranged from 51.6 to 88.5 min in the four patients with MA. During the implantation period of 10.3 ± 3.6 days, no patients experienced any complications.
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.