ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
Clinical experiences and learning curves from robot-assisted neurosurgical biopsies with Stealth Autoguide™.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. 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.
- Early Clinical Experience with the Stealth Autoguide Cranial Robotic Guidance Platform for Stereotactic Brain Biopsy.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2026Article
- Non-diagnostic stereotactic intracranial biopsies: a 15-year institutional experience.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- Common Endpoints in Studies of Image-Based Guidance in External Ventricular Drain Placement: A Scoping Review.Brain and behavior · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Biopsies of intracranial lesions are a cornerstone in the diagnosis of unresectable tumors to guide neurooncological treatment; however, the procedure is also associated with risks. The results from the cranial robot guidance system Stealth Autoguide™ were studied after introduction at a neurosurgical department. Primary aims include the presentation of clinical and radiological data, accuracy of radiological diagnosis, learning curves of the new technology, diagnostic yield, and precision. The secondary aim was to study complications. Methods: Retrospective data inclusion was performed on patients ≥ 18 years undergoing biopsy with Stealth Autoguide™ due to suspected brain tumors in the first 3 years after the introduction of the technique. Data regarding clinical characteristics, intraoperative variables, pathological diagnosis, and complications were recorded. Analyses of learning curves were performed. Results: A total of 79 procedures were performed on 78 patients with a mean age of 62 years (SD 12.7, range 23-82), 30.8% were female. Tumors were often multifocal (63.3%) and supratentorial (89.9%). The diagnostic yield was 87.3%. The first-hand radiological diagnosis was correct in 62.0%. A slight decrease in operation time was observed, although not significant. The surgeon contributed to 12% of the variability. Conclusions: Robot-assisted biopsies with Stealth Autoguide™ seem to be comparable, with regards to complications, to frame-based and other frameless neurosurgical biopsies. Learning curves demonstrated no statistical differences in time of surgery and only 12% surgeon-related variation (ie, variation caused by the change of performing surgeon), suggesting a successful implementation of this technical adjunct.
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.