SynthesisNeurosurgical review2025
Efficacy and safety of The Robotic Stereotactic Assistance for intracerebral hemorrhage; A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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 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.
- Global research trends and hotspots in robot-assisted stereotactic neurosurgery: a bibliometric and visualization analysis (2005-2025).Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
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
Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a critical medical condition associated with a high mortality rate. Surgical evacuation of extensive hemorrhage can improve survival and functional outcomes, but deep brain location poses a challenge. Our study seeks to provide robust evidence highlighting the efficacy, safety, and contribution of Robotic Stereotactic Assistance (ROSA) in advancing neurosurgical practices in the evacuation of ICH compared to conventional treatment methods. We searched for relevant papers comparing ROSA with conventional treatments until October 2024, using four electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The analysis was done using R Software. Continuous data was pooled as mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data was pooled as odds ratio (OR) in a random effect model with a relative 95% CI. A sub-group analysis was conducted according to the type of conventional therapy and the site of the hemorrhage. Eleven studies, comprising 968 patients (478 in the ROSA group and 490 in the control group "non-ROSA"), were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The analysis of primary outcomes revealed significantly higher postoperative Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores, MD of 1.80 (95% CI: 0.68 to 2.92; p < 0.01), and lower rebleeding rates, OR of 0.26 (95% CI: 0.10 to 0.66; p < 0.01). However, no significant difference in mortality was found between the two groups, with an OR of 0.38 (95% CI: 0.11 to 1.38; p = 0.14). Regarding secondary outcomes, the ROSA group significantly reduced surgery duration and decreased intracranial infections and pneumonia. No significant difference was observed between the groups concerning central hypothermia. Using the ROSA robotic system for ICH evacuation is associated with improved neurological outcomes. These findings highlight the potential benefits of ROSA in advancing neurological practices for the management of ICH.
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.