ReviewFrontiers in neurology
External ventricular drainage in modern neurosurgical practice: optimization, standardization, and emerging guidance technologies.
Review in Frontiers in neurology. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
External ventricular drain (EVD) placement is a standard neurosurgical procedure for cerebrospinal fluid diversion and intracranial pressure monitoring, yet conventional freehand techniques are associated with substantial variability in placement accuracy and complication risk. Anatomical distortion and ventricular compression commonly seen in the setting of pathology further limit the landmark-based reliability of freehand drain insertion, increasing the likelihood of multi-pass attempts and suboptimal catheter placement. Consequently, adjunct guidance technologies, including ultrasound, electromagnetic neuronavigation, and augmented reality (AR) platforms have been developed to improve procedural precision and consistency. This review examines current evidence comparing freehand and technology-assisted EVD placement, integrating an overview of the technical principles underlying contemporary guidance systems with a synthesis of comparative clinical outcomes across modalities. Reported clinical evidence suggests guided techniques can improve catheter placement accuracy and first-pass success, while workflow impact varies by modality and institutional experience. Electromagnetic navigation demonstrated consistent performance across settings, with AR platforms representing an emerging approach with potential advantages in portability and ease of integration. Continued efforts toward procedural standardization and prospective validation may further define the role of guided techniques in advancing patient safety and reducing variability in ventriculostomy practice.
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.