Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35740595›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Specialised Surgical Instruments for Endoscopic and Endoscope-Assisted Neurosurgery: A Systematic Review of Safety, Efficacy and Usability.

Holly Aylmore, Emmanouil Dimitrakakis, Joshua Carmichael, Danyal Z Khan, Danail Stoyanov, Neil L Dorward, Hani J Marcus

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Holly AylmoreUCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London WC1N 3BG, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1800-8399
Emmanouil DimitrakakisWellcome/EPSRC Centre for Surgical and Interventional Sciences (WEISS), University College London (UCL), London W1W 7TY, UK.
Joshua CarmichaelDepartment of Renal Medicine, Centre for Genetics and Genomics, University College London (UCL), London NW3 2PF, UK.
Danyal Z KhanUCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London WC1N 3BG, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9213-2550
Danail StoyanovWellcome/EPSRC Centre for Surgical and Interventional Sciences (WEISS), University College London (UCL), London W1W 7TY, UK.
Neil L DorwardNational Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
Hani J MarcusUCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London WC1N 3BG, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8000-392X
National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery · GBWellcome / EPSRC Centre for Interventional and Surgical Sciences · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

cancerendoscopykeyhole surgerysurgical instruments

Identifiers

PMID35740595
PMCPMC9221041
OpenAlexW4282915815

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.