ArticleHeliyon2024
Design of intelligent human-machine collaborative robot-assisted craniotomy system.
Article in Heliyon, 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.
- Development of dental implant drill with detection mechanism of bone quality change.International journal of implant dentistry · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To develop an intelligent human-machine collaborative control robot-assisted craniotomy system, and test its efficacy by experiments. Methods: The system integrated a UR5 robotic arm (Universal Robots, Denmark), a host computer, a double six-degree-of-freedom force sensor(Nanjing Yuli Instrument Co., Ltd.), a medical drill(AESCULAP®, Germany), a Polaris Optical navigation system(NDI,Canada), with a self-designed navigation procedure and a visual graphical user interface(GUI). According to a preoperative CT and resection plan, the motion of robotic arm can be restricted in a precise and safe area. Through experiments of the 3D-printed skull models and animals (Bama mini pig), we tested the accuracy, efficiency and safety of the robot system. Results: After successfully developed the robot-assisted craniotomy system, we tested the collaborative controlling fluency of robotic arm with the average response time less than 1 s, as well as feedback sensitivity of force sensor with an average result of 60 N and 50 N when drilling on skull models and mini pigs respectively. In addition, compared with "surgeon" group, "robot" group had less average positioning error (1.87 ± 0.66 mm VS 3.14 ± 0.73 mm, P < 0.001) and time spent (6.64 ± 1.15min VS 8.06 ± 1.10min, P = 0.001) in skull model experiments. Also, in mini pig experiments, "robot" group had less average positioning error (3.26 ± 0.51 mm VS 4.39 ± 0.75 mm, P = 0.008) and time spent (11.83 ± 0.92min VS 26.10 ± 1.62min, P < 0.001) compared with "surgeon" group. No matter in skull model experiments or in mini pig experiments, the durations of robot startup and navigation process were not different between the experimental group and control group (3.44 ± 0.98 VS 3.75 ± 1.00min, P = 0.39 [skull model experiments]; 6.42 ± 0.65 VS 7.10 ± 1.12min, P = 0.11 [mini pig experiments]). Because of limited samples, we compared the incidence of tissue injury between "robot" and "surgeon" group jointly (3.8 % [1/26] VS 19.2 % [5/26], P = 0.193). Conclusion: Successfully developed, the human-machine collaborative robot-assisted craniotomy system achieved craniotomy procedure fluently providing a sensitive force feedback to surgeon and did better than manual work by surgeon in accuracy, efficiency and safety. Further experimental research needs to be performed to testify its applicability in neurosurgery in future.
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.