ArticleThe international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS2022
Validation of a novel path planner for stereotactic neurosurgical interventions-A retrospective clinical study.
Article in The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Automatic Path-Planning Techniques for Minimally Invasive Stereotactic Neurosurgical Procedures-A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Pooled it
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
Abstract
backgroundThe gold standard workflow for targeting structures in the brain involves manual path planning. This preoperative manual path planning is very time-intensive and laborious, especially when some outcome measures such as maximum ablation and penetration depth has to be optimised.
methodsOur novel path planner generates an optimal path which maximises the hippocampus penetration and distance from critical structures using a precomputed cost map and a reward map.
resultsThe average penetration ratio for 12 cases is 88.13 ± 23.23% for a resolution of 1° and a safety margin of 1 mm. Average run time for the path planner based on 1° resolution was 1.99 ± 0.68 min.
conclusionsResults show that the algorithm can generate safe and clinically relevant paths with a quantitative representation of the penetration depth and is faster than the average reported time for manual path planning.
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.