ReviewOperative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.)2025
A General Framework for Characterizing Inaccuracy in Stereotactic Systems.
Review in Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A 2-Year Experience of Robot-Assisted Epilepsy Surgery Using a New Cranial Robotic System With Optical Tracking: Variables Influencing Accuracy and Complications.Neurosurgery practice · 2026Article
- Accuracy and Outcomes of KYMERO Robot-Guided Deep Brain Stimulation for Dystonia : Retrospective Cohort Analysis.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2026Article
- A Pneumatically Actuated Robotic Assistant for MRI-Guided Stereotactic Neurosurgery.IEEE transactions on medical robotics and bionics · 2026Article
- Parameterization of intraoperative human microelectrode recordings: Linking action potential morphology to brain anatomy.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Parameterization of intraoperative human microelectrode recordings: Linking action potential morphology to brain anatomy.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Principles of Stereotactic Surgery.Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesIdentifying and characterizing sources of targeting error in stereotactic procedures is essential to maximizing accuracy, potentially improving surgical outcomes. We aim to describe a generic framework which characterizes sources of stereotactic inaccuracy.
methodsWe assembled a list of stereotactic systems: ROSA, Neuromate, Mazor Renaissance, ExcelsiusGPS, Cirq, STarFix (FHC), Nexframe, ClearPoint, CRW, and Leksell. We searched the literature for qualitative and quantitative work identifying and quantifying potential sources of inaccuracy and describing each system's implementation using Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines. Our literature search spanned 1969 to 2024, and various studies were included, with formats ranging from phantom studies to systematic reviews. Keyword searches were conducted, and the details about each system were used to create a framework for identifying and describing the unique targeting error profile of each system.
resultsWe describe and illustrate the details of various sources of stereotactic inaccuracies and generate a framework to unify these sources into a single framework. This framework entails 5 domains: imaging, registration, mechanical accuracy, target planning and adjustment, and trajectory planning and adjustment. This framework was applied to 10 stereotactic systems.
conclusionThis framework provides a rubric to analyze the sources of error for any stereotactic system. Illustrations allow the reader to understand sources of error conceptually so that they may apply them to their practice.
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.