SynthesisNeurosurgical review2024
Robotic versus manual diagnostic and stenting procedures: 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEndovascular procedures are associated with improved outcomes and patient satisfaction compared to open surgery in selected cases. However, this is at the cost of increased radiation exposure. Robotic procedures are thought to minimize radiation exposure and may confer procedural efficacy due to the lack of operator fatigue. Our systematic review and meta-analysis compares procedural efficacy of robotic versus manual diagnostic and stenting procedures.
methodsPubMed, Embase and Scopus were searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Articles reporting comparative outcomes between robotic and manual diagnostic and stenting procedures were included. Articles related to stereotactic radiosurgery and open surgical procedures were excluded. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. Effect sizes (mean difference for robotic and manual procedures) and variances were calculated for procedure time. The random effects model was used to calculate pooled estimates for technical success using the "metafor" package in R (R software v4.2.1, Vienna, Austria).
results6465 articles were identified through our search strategy. After 4683 articles were excluded through a title and abstract screen and 30 articles were excluded through a full text review, 3 articles reporting outcomes in 175 patients undergoing robotic procedures and 185 patients undergoing manual procedures were included. These studies reported comparative outcomes for carotid artery stenting, diagnostic cerebral angiograms and transverse sinus stenting. There was no significant difference in procedure time (mean difference: 0.14 min [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.58, 0.86, p = 0.64, I
conclusionsRobotic procedures confer significantly lower rates of technical success with no significant difference in procedure time. Further studies are necessary to draw conclusions about potential benefits of robotic procedures including lower radiation exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39641822What 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.