ArticleNeurosurgery practice2025
Comparison of an Electrical Cranial Access Drill With Autostop Technology to a Traditional Hand Crank Cranial Access Drill.
Article in Neurosurgery practice, 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.
- Future Directions and Evolution Strategies for the Clinical Management of Traumatic Brain Injury.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesCraniostomies performed at bedside are one of the most important procedures in neurosurgery allowing for cranial access for monitoring of intracranial pressure, evacuation of subdural or epidural hematomas, or the placement of external ventricular drains. Although neurosurgery as a whole has seen rapid advances in its technology, craniostomies continue to be performed with hand crank drill technology similar to what was used in the 1600s. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of a novel electrical cranial access drill with autostop technology (ECAD) to that of traditional hand crank drills.
methodsUsing both drills, holes were drilled into the cranial vault of human cadavers by a veteran cranial surgeon and by a medical student without prior experience in the procedure. Time to drill each hole and the number of dural violations was compared between drills.
resultsOverall, 30 craniostomies were created with the hand crank drill and 61 were created with the ECAD. The average time to hole competition was significantly longer with the hand crank drill than with the ECAD (24.1 vs 16.5 seconds,
conclusionThe electric drill with autostop technology demonstrated faster time to hole completion and significantly fewer dural violations than the traditional hand crank drill.
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.