ArticleChinese neurosurgical journal2025
Phantom and in vivo validation of a novel contactless registration method for robot-assisted SEEG surgery.
Article in Chinese neurosurgical journal, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, robot-assisted stereotactic system has been widely used in stereo-electroencephalogram (SEEG) surgery. However, current registration mainly based on bone-fiducial registration (CBR) is limited by the inconvenient of repeated contact during the process. Here, a novel contactless optical-tracking registration (OTR) were applied for SEEG using robot-assisted stereotactic system. To demonstrate the accuracy and convenience of the novel OTR method compared with contact CBR method during the robot-assisted SEEG in phantom and animal model study.
methodsA head phantom and 12 Bama pigs (Sus scrofa domestica) with six under CBR and six under OTR were selected for the SEEG. Procedures were performed using the robot-assisted stereotactic system in different registration methods. The positioning error and time consumption during the registration process were assessed to compare the accuracy and convenience of OTR and CBR. Besides, two new users for the robot-assisted stereotactic system were selected for the learning curve analysis.
resultsThe mean positioning errors in OTR group of the target and entry points were 1.68 ± 0.80 mm and 0.76 ± 0.39 mm. And in CBR group, mean positioning errors of the target and entry points were 1.49 ± 0.79 mm and 0.70 ± 0.33 mm. The registration time of OTR method (99.71 ± 1.08 s) was significantly shorter than that using CBR method (241.29 ± 28.95 s) (p value < 0.001). During the learning curve analysis, it is earlier for the users to go under OTR than CBR to reach a preferable entry error of 0.5 mm.
conclusionThe contactless OTR method can effectively reduce the time consumption during the registration process while maintaining the accuracy with CBR method. The novel method not only simplify the procedure by optical-tracking but also shorten the new user's learning curve compared with current method.
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.