ReviewNeurosurgical review2022
Basis for error in stereotactic and computer-assisted surgery in neurosurgical applications: literature review.
Review in Neurosurgical review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimizing Hemorrhage Complications in Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery - The Impact of Imaging Modalities and Trajectory Planning.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2025Article
- BrainStereo: clinical application and efficiency evaluation of an open-source stereotactic planning tool.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Principles of Stereotactic Surgery.Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2025Review
- A General Framework for Characterizing Inaccuracy in Stereotactic Systems.Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2025Review
- Digital neurosurgery in the era of intelligent medicine: a scoping review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Minimally invasive robot-assisted direct pars repair: illustrative cases.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2024Article
- The Role of Neurosurgical Techniques in Management of Acute and Chronic Stroke: A Comprehensive Literature Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- [Robotics and computer-assisted surgery].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Technological advancements in optoelectronic motion capture systems have allowed for the development of high-precision computer-assisted surgery (CAS) used in cranial and spinal surgical procedures. Errors generated sequentially throughout the chain of components of CAS may have cumulative effect on the accuracy of implant and instrumentation placement - potentially affecting patient outcomes. Navigational integrity and maintenance of fidelity of optoelectronic data is the cornerstone of CAS. Error reporting measures vary between studies. Understanding error generation, mechanisms of propagation, and how they relate to workflow can assist clinicians in error mitigation and improve accuracy during navigation in neurosurgical procedures. Diligence in planning, fiducial positioning, system registration, and intra-operative workflow have the potential to improve accuracy and decrease disparity between planned and final instrumentation and implant position. This study reviews the potential errors associated with each step in computer-assisted surgery and provides a basis for disparity in intrinsic accuracy versus achieved accuracy in the clinical operative environment.
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.