Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39615014›Full record

SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024

Robot-assisted versus manually guided stereotactic biopsy for intracranial lesions - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Fernando Cotrim Gomes, Felipe Takamori Oliveira, Diego Dias Freire Carvalho, Flávia Baldotto Zampirolo, Antônio Gaudi Pinheiro Vorcaro Garcia, Anna Laura Lima Larcipretti, Alice Campos Meneses, Isabella Cristina Santos de Castro, Marcio Yuri Ferreira, Dan Zimelewicz Oberman and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Fernando Cotrim GomesFaculty of Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. fernandocg@ufmg.br.
Felipe Takamori OliveiraFaculdade da Saúde e Ecologia Humana, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Diego Dias Freire CarvalhoFaculdade da Saúde e Ecologia Humana, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Flávia Baldotto ZampiroloFaculdade da Saúde e Ecologia Humana, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Antônio Gaudi Pinheiro Vorcaro GarciaFaculdade da Saúde e Ecologia Humana, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Anna Laura Lima LarciprettiFaculty of Medicine, Federal University of Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, Brazil.
Alice Campos MenesesFaculty of Medicine, Alfredo Nasser University Center, Aparecida de Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Isabella Cristina Santos de CastroFaculty of Medicine, Alfredo Nasser University Center, Aparecida de Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Marcio Yuri FerreiraDepartment of Neurosurgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell Health, New York, USA.
Dan Zimelewicz ObermanDepartment of Neurosurgery, Hospital de Força Aérea do Galeão, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Allan Dias PolveriniDepartment of Neurosurgery, Barretos Cancer Hospital / Fundação Pio XII, Barretos, São Paulo, Brazil.
João Paulo AlmeidaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Indiana University, Indianapolis, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Brain NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresStereotaxic TechniquesBiopsyHumansImage-Guided BiopsyBiopsyRoboticsStereotaxic Techniques

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.