SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024
Exploring the safety and efficacy of robotic neurosurgery in the management of intracerebral hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Robot assisted stereotactic surgery improves hematoma evacuation in intracerebral hemorrhage compared to frame based method.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) carries a high mortality rate of around 50% annually, with management traditionally involving medical and surgical approaches. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare robotic neurosurgery with conventional treatments for ICH. We adhered to PRISMA guidelines, analyzing data from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to October 2023, including randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and cohort studies. We evaluated outcomes such as operation time, drainage time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization, mortality, and complications. Of the 10 studies with 1187 participants (609 in robotic neurosurgery and 578 in conventional management), robotic neurosurgery was associated with significantly reduced operation times, drainage times, and hospitalization needs, though intraoperative blood loss and mortality rates showed no significant difference. Robotic neurosurgery also demonstrated a lower risk of rebleeding but similar safety profiles for other complications. Despite these advantages, significant heterogeneity and limited RCTs highlight the need for further research. Robotic neurosurgery appears beneficial in improving ICH management outcomes, warranting additional multicenter trials to confirm long-term efficacy and safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39227430What 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.