ArticleNeurospine2024
Advancements and Challenges in Robot-Assisted Bone Processing in Neurosurgical Procedures.
Article in Neurospine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent advances in robotic-assisted laminectomy in spine surgery: a narrative review.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- Commentary on "The Utility and Feasibility of Smart Glasses in Spine Surgery: Minimizing Radiation Exposure During Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Insertion".Neurospine · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePractical applications of nerve decompression using neurosurgical robots remain unexplored. Our ongoing research and development initiatives, utilizing industrial robots, aim to establish a secure and efficient neurosurgical robotic system. The principal objective of this study was to automate bone grinding, which is a pivotal component of neurosurgical procedures.
methodsTo achieve this goal, we integrated an endoscope system into a manipulator and conducted precision bone machining using a neurosurgical drill, recording the grinding resistance values across 3 axes. Our study encompassed 2 core tasks: linear grinding, such as laminectomy, and cylindrical grinding, such as foraminotomy, with each task yielding unique measurement data.
resultsIn linear grinding, we observed a proportional increase in grinding resistance values in the machining direction with acceleration. This observation suggests that 3-axis resistance measurements are a valuable tool for gauging and predicting deep cortical penetration. However, problems occurred in cylindrical grinding, and a significant error of 10% was detected. The analysis revealed that multiple factors, including the tool tip efficiency, machining speed, teaching methods, and deflection in the robot arm and jig joints, contributed to this error.
conclusionWe successfully measured the resistance exerted on the tool tip during bone machining with a robotic arm across 3 axes. The resistance ranged from 3 to 8 Nm, with the measurement conducted at a processing speed approximately twice that of manual surgery performed by a surgeon. During the simulation of foraminotomy under endoscopic grinding conditions, we encountered a -10% error margin.
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.