SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024
Robot-assisted versus manually guided stereotactic biopsy for intracranial lesions - 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global research trends and hotspots in robot-assisted stereotactic neurosurgery: a bibliometric and visualization analysis (2005-2025).Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Non-diagnostic stereotactic intracranial biopsies: a 15-year institutional experience.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- Review
- Analysis of factors influencing diagnostic yield and target point error in robot-assisted stereotactic brain biopsy: a single-center experience.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- The utility of stereotactic biopsy of intracranial lesions in the diagnosis of leukemia complicated by central nervous system lesions.Chinese neurosurgical journal · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stereotactic biopsies are essential for obtaining accurate histopathological analysis to guide treatment decisions for deep-seated brain lesions. Manually guided methods, while commonly used and highly precise, can be limited by potential inaccuracies and insufficient tissue sampling. The emerging robot-assisted (RA) techniques offer enhanced precision and could address these limitations for improved accuracy. We aimed to compare safety and effectiveness of RA stereotactic biopsies to traditional techniques. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science using terms related to robotic biopsies and intracranial lesions. Eligible studies compared robot-assisted procedures to traditional techniques. Data extracted included diagnostic yield, complication rates, and accuracy. Quality assessment of studies was performed with the ROBINS-I tool, and a random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Five studies were included, encompassing 913 patients (robot-assisted n = 434, traditional n = 479). Robot-assisted biopsies demonstrated higher diagnostic yield (OR 2.06, 95% CI [1.01,4.21], p = 0.04), and improved trajectory accuracy, with entry point error (EPE) reduced by 0.42 mm (95% CI [-0.59,-0.26], p < 0.001) and target point error (TPE) reduced by 0.93 mm (95% CI [-1.80,-0.06], p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications or operative time. RA stereotactic biopsies may improve diagnostic yield and accuracy in targeting intracranial lesions without increasing complication rates or operative time. The limited number of studies and potential biases suggest a need for further high-quality, prospective research to ascertain these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39615014What 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.