SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
A systematic review and meta-analysis of robot-assisted deep brain stimulation: comparative insights with conventional techniques.
Synthesis in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robot-Assisted Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson's Disease : Accuracy, Workflow, Clinical Outcomes, and Safety.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2026Article
- Multitarget neurostimulation of the deep brain: clinical opportunities, challenges, and emerging technologies.Journal of neural engineering · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRecent robotic-assisted surgical systems have shown promising efficiency and accuracy in brain surgeries. However, their application in deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery remains limited.
methodsStudies from the Embase, Scopus, and Pubmed databases were included using a modified search string, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We extracted technical aspects of robotic-assisted DBS (RA-DBS) surgery, patient characteristics, accuracy, safety, and overall clinical results. We applied a random effects model for analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Cochran's Q test and the I
resultsThe pooled mean radial error (RE) and Euclidean distance (3D-EE) in robotic surgeries were 1.04 mm (95% CI 0.93 to 1.15 mm) and 1.19 mm (95% CI: 0.94 - 1.45 mm). RA-DBS outcomes regarding RE were comparable to conventional stereotactic DBS (C-DBS) surgery (SMD: -0.56, 95% CI: -1.35 - 0.22, P-value: 0.16). Also, the difference in the rates of reported complications was insignificant (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: -0.64 - 1.15, P-value: 0.58). None of the frame-based or frameless (P-value: 0.36), the use of MER (P-value: 0.11), or the type of anesthesia (P-value: 0.27) showed significant differences. However, there was an insignificant lower RE trend in the studies that employed frame-based techniques, used general anesthesia, and did not utilize MER.
conclusionOur study shows an acceptable level of error associated with RA-DBS. We found that the accuracy and complication rates were comparable to C-DBS. Due to substantial heterogeneity in the pooled mean RE and 3D-EE, more studies with higher sample sizes are required to evaluate RA-DBS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40164900What 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.