Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36629923›Full record

ReviewChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2023

[Robotics and computer-assisted procedures in cranial neurosurgery].

Thomas Picht, Peter Vajkoczy

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Thomas PichtKlinik für Neurochirurgie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland. thomas.picht@charite.de.
Peter VajkoczyKlinik für Neurochirurgie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe medical technical innovations over the last decade have made operations in the highly sensitive regions of the brain much safer.

objectivePresentation of how far computer assistance and robotics have become incorporated into clinical neurosurgery. MATERIAL AND

methodEvaluation of the scientific literature and analysis of the certification status of the corresponding medical devices.

resultsThe rapid development of computer technology and the switch to digital imaging has led to the widespread introduction of neurosurgical planning software and intraoperative neuronavigation. In the field of robotics, the penetration into clinical neurosurgery is currently still largely limited to the automatic setting of trajectories.

conclusionThe digitalization of imaging has fundamentally transformed neurosurgery. In the field of cranial neurosurgery, computer-assisted procedures can now be distinguished from noncomputer-assisted procedures only in a handful of cases. In the coming years important innovations for the clinical implementation can be expected in the field of robotics.

Indexed as

NeurosurgeryRoboticsComputersNeuronavigationNeurosurgical ProceduresImage-guided therapyIntraoperative neuronavigationMinimally invasive proceduresNeurosurgical planning softwareRobot-assisted surgery

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.