Trial reportStroke and vascular neurology2024
Efficacy and safety of a neurointerventional operation robotic assistance system in cerebral angiography.
Trial report in Stroke and vascular neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07182188 (Post-Market Application Study and Efficacy/Safety Evaluation of a Vascular Interventional Robotic System for Cerebral Angiography), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 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.
Post-Market Application Study and Efficacy/Safety Evaluation of a Vascular Interventional Robotic System for Cerebral Angiography: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robot-assisted versus manual percutaneous vascular interventions across vascular territories: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of cerebral robot assisted angiography: randomized comparison of robotic versus manual procedures.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2026Trial
- Do robot-assisted percutaneous vascular interventions improve effectiveness and safety compared with manual procedures: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Clinical validation and literature review of robot-assisted cerebral angiography.Chinese neurosurgical journal · 2026Article
- Robotics in Cerebrovascular Disease: The Final Frontier.Missouri medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAt present, neurointerventional surgery requires angiographers to perform operations in the digital subtraction angiography (DSA) room. Ionising radiation and chronic joint damage are still unavoidable for angiographers. Therefore, we researched and developed a neurointerventional robot-assisted system, which is operated by angiographers in an operating room outside the DSA room. We have conducted a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a robot-assisted system in human cerebral angiography. In the future, this research will provide a platform for the research and development of an intelligent surgical system and bring revolutionary progress in neurointerventional surgery.
methodsFrom December 2020 to December 2021, 260 patients were enrolled from three medical centres, who were randomly and equally divided into a robot-assisted system group and a clinical routine cerebral angiography group. The success rate of angiography, the rate of the catheter reaching the target vessel, the operation time, X-ray radiation exposure and the incidence of related adverse events were compared between the two groups.
resultsA total of 257 patients completed this trial; baseline characteristics of the two groups did not differ significantly. The success rate of angiography in both the control group and the experimental group was 100%. The rate of the catheter reaching the target vessel was 99.23% and 100.00% in the control and experimental groups, respectively. For the control versus experimental groups, the angiographic operation time was 48.59±25.60 min versus 47.94±27.49 min, respectively; the X-ray radiation dose was 735.01±554.77 mGy versus 821.65±705.45 mGy, respectively; and the incidence of adverse events was 23.44% versus 22.48%, respectively. No statistical differences were present between the two groups.
conclusionThe robot-assisted surgical system is more convenient for cerebral angiography and is as safe and effective as the traditional cerebral angiography.
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.