ArticleActa neurochirurgica2025
Robotic arm vs. stereotactic frame in deep brain stimulation surgery for movement disorders: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robot-Assisted versus non-robotic frame-based deep brain stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of targeting accuracy and clinical outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robot-Assisted Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson's Disease : Accuracy, Workflow, Clinical Outcomes, and Safety.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2026Article
- SEEG-guided therapeutic decision-making in drug-resistant epilepsy: retrospective analysis and clinical framework.Acta neurochirurgica · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, robotic arms have been incorporated into the implantation of electrodes for deep brain stimulation (DBS).This study aimed to determine the accuracy of brain electrode placement, initial clinical efficacy, and safety profile of the robotic arm Neuromate (Renishaw) compared to a stereotactic frame in movement disorders.
methodsThis study involved two retrospective cohorts: one cohort was operated on using a stereotactic frame and the other with a robotic arm. This study was conducted at Barcelona Hospital Clinic.
resultsSeventy-seven patients were included, of whom 30 underwent surgery using the robot and 47 using a stereotactic frame. The postoperative improvement percentage of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale at 3 months was similar in both groups (robot: 71.4 ± 18 vs. frame: 72.6% ± 17, P = 0.82). There were no significant differences in the perioperative complications (robot: 4% vs. frame: 4.3%, P = 0.93) or in the adverse reactions related to brain stimulation and medical treatment (robot: 18% vs. frame: 25%, P = 0.53). There was a slight improvement in the anatomical-radiological accuracy of brain electrode implantation assisted by the robotic arm, measured using radial error (robot: 1.01 ± 0.5 mm vs. frame: 1.32 ± 0.6 mm, P = 0.03).
conclusionsBoth systems (robotic and stereotactic frame) exhibited similar initial clinical efficacies and safety profiles. The use of the robotic arm Neuromate slightly improved the anatomical-radiological accuracy in the placement of DBS electrodes for movement disorders compared with the stereotactic frame.
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.