ArticleActa neurochirurgica2022
Evaluation of the precision of navigation-assisted endoscopy according to the navigation tool setup and the type of endoscopes.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Conceptual Framework for 4D Holographic Visualization in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Toward Externalized Spatiotemporal Cognition.JMIR XR and spatial computing · 2026Article
- Influence of surgical position and registration methods on clinical accuracy of navigation systems in brain tumor surgery.Scientific reports · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectPreoperative image-based neuronavigation-assisted endoscopy during intracranial procedures is gaining great interest. This study aimed to analyze the precision of navigation-assisted endoscopy according to the navigation setup, the type of optic and its working angulation.
methodsA custom-made box with four screws was referenced. The navigation-assisted endoscope was aligned on the screws (targets). The precision on the navigation screen was defined as the virtual distance-to-target between the tip of the endoscope and the center of the screws. Three modifiers were assessed: (1) the distance D between the box and the reference array (CLOSE 13 cm - MIDDLE 30 cm - FAR 53 cm), (2) the distance between the tip of the endoscope and the navigation array on the endoscope (close 5 cm - middle 10 cm - far 20 cm), (3) the working angulation of the endoscope (0°-endoscope and 30°-endoscope angled at 90° and 45° with the box).
resultsThe median precision was 1.3 mm (Q1: 1.1; Q3: 1.7) with the best setting CLOSE/close. The best setting in surgical condition (CLOSE/far) showed a distance-to-target of 2.3 mm (Q1: 1.9; Q3: 2.5). The distance D was correlated to the precision (Spearman rho = 0.82), but not the distance d (Spearman rho = 0.04). The type of optic and its angulation with the box were also correlated to the precision (Spearman rho = - 0.37). The best setting was the use of a 30°-endoscope angled at 45° (1.4 mm (Q1: 1.0; Q3: 1.9)).
conclusionNavigated-assisted endoscopy is feasible and offers a good precision. The navigation setup should be optimized, reducing the risk of inadvertent perifocal damage.
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.