ReviewCancers2022
Specialised Surgical Instruments for Endoscopic and Endoscope-Assisted Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review of Safety, Efficacy and Usability.
Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- International multi-center study to quantify the effect of deep venous drainage after surgical resection of Spetzler-Martin Grade II-III brain arteriovenous malformations.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Applicability of a Dexterity-Enhancing Handheld Robot for 360° Endoscopic Skull Base Approaches: An Exploratory Cadaver Study.Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2026Article
- A Handheld Robot for Endoscopic Endonasal Skull Base Surgery: Updated Preclinical Validation Study (IDEAL Stage 0).Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2025Article
- Identifying research priorities for pituitary adenoma surgery: an international Delphi consensus statement.Pituitary · 2025Article
- Harmonized technical standard test methods for quality evaluation of medical fluorescence endoscopic imaging systems.Visual computing for industry, biomedicine, and art · 2025Article
- Non-Metallic MR-Guided Concentric Tube Robot for Intracerebral Hemorrhage Evacuation.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2023Article
- Current and Future Advances in Surgical Therapy for Pituitary Adenoma.Endocrine reviews · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
While there have been great strides in endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgical approaches, particularly in the treatment of deep-sited brain and skull base tumours, the greatest technical barrier to their adoption has been the availability of suitable surgical instruments. This systematic review seeks to identify specialised instruments for these approaches and evaluate their safety, efficacy and usability. Conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science were searched. Original research studies that reported the use of specialised mechanical instruments that manipulate tissue in human patients, cadavers or surgical models were included. The results identified 50 specialised instruments over 62 studies. Objective measures of safety were reported in 32 out of 62 studies, and 20 reported objective measures of efficacy. Instruments were broadly safe and effective with one instrument malfunction noted. Measures of usability were reported in 15 studies, with seven reporting on ergonomics and eight on the instruments learning curve. Instruments with reports on usability were generally considered to be ergonomic, though learning curve was often considered a disadvantage. Comparisons to standard instruments were made in eight studies and were generally favourable. While there are many specialised instruments for endoscopic and endoscope-assisted neurosurgery available, the evidence for their safety, efficacy and usability is limited with non-standardised reporting and few comparative studies to standard instruments. Future innovation should be tailored to unmet clinical needs, and evaluation guided by structured development processes.
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.