ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2025
Clinical benefit of robot-assisted minimally invasive stereotactic aspiration/drainage in hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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.
- Advances in Stereotactic Hematoma Evacuation for Hypertensive Intracerebral Hemorrhage and the Value of Multimodal Monitoring.Cerebrovascular diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Efficacy of robot-assisted stereotactic aspiration in moderate basal ganglia hemorrhage: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of robot-assisted minimally invasive stereotactic aspiration/drainage (RAMISAD) in hematoma evacuation for hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage (HICH) and assess its associated clinical benefits.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 121 HICH patients admitted between October 2020 to March 2025. According to surgical procedures, patients were categorized into a control group (n=62, conventional craniotomy for hematoma evacuation) and an observation group (n=59, RAMISAD). Surgical factors, neurological recovery (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, NIHSS), daily living function (Barthel Index), and pre- and post-operative serum markers (neuron-specific enolase [NSE], tumor necrosis factor-α [TNF-α], and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]) were compared between groups. Complication rates were also documented postoperatively.
resultsThe hematoma clearance rate was significantly higher in the observation group than in the control group. RAMISAD was associated with shorter operative time, reduced blood loss, and shorter hospital stays (
conclusionFor HICH cases, RAMISAD offers clear advantages over traditional craniotomy, including improved hematoma evacuation efficiency, reduced neurological impairment, enhanced functional recovery, and lower postoperative inflammatory responses, thereby promoting faster rehabilitation.
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.