ArticleChinese neurosurgical journal2026
Clinical validation and literature review of robot-assisted cerebral angiography.
Article in Chinese neurosurgical journal, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo validate the clinical safety and efficacy of a domestically produced robotic-assisted system (YDHB-NS01) for cerebral angiography and to review the current status, advantages, and challenges of robot-assisted technology in cerebrovascular interventions.
methodsFrom May to October 2025, 25 consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted cerebral angiography and 25 consecutive patients who underwent manual cerebral angiography at our center were prospectively enrolled. The primary endpoints were technical success rate and clinical success rate. Secondary endpoints included procedure time, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, contrast volume, total angiography room time, device performance evaluation, and complication rate. Additionally, a literature review was conducted to summarize the applications and developments of various robotic systems in neurointervention.
resultsAll 50 (25 in the robotic-assisted group and 25 in the manual group) procedures were successfully completed with a 100% technical success rate. There were no differences between the two groups in patients' demographic data, fluoroscopy time, patient radiation dose, contrast agent dose, or total angiography room time (all p > 0.05). The robotic-assisted group had a shorter procedure time than the manual group (27 [15, 143] vs. 38 [21, 105], p = 0.005). A learning curve for the robotic-assisted system was observed. The robotic-assisted system operated stably without malfunctions. No procedure-related or device-related complications occurred.
conclusionThe preliminary clinical application demonstrates that the YDHB-NS01 robot-assisted system is feasible for diagnostic cerebral angiography and shows early indications of safety and comparable procedural performance to those of conventional manual methods. Given the small, single-center cohort and the exploratory nature of this study, larger multicenter controlled trials are required to confirm these findings.
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.