SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robot-Assisted versus non-robotic frame-based deep brain stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of targeting accuracy and clinical outcomes.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) outcomes depend on accurate lead placement. Robot-assisted DBS (RA-DBS) has been increasingly adopted, yet its advantages over conventional non-robotic frame-based DBS (NRA-DBS) regarding targeting accuracy, operative efficiency, and clinical outcomes remain debated.To compare RA-DBS versus NRA-DBS for targeting accuracy and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing DBS for movement disorders.This meta-analysis and systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261336001) and adhered to PRISMA. Patients with mobility disorders treated with RA-DBS versus frame-based NRA-DBS were included in comparative studies (RCTs and prospective/retrospective cohorts). Targeting accuracy measures (such as target point error, vector error, and radial error) and extreme targeting outliers were the main results. Operative time measurements, perioperative problems (such as cerebral bleeding), and motor improvement (UPDRS-III) were secondary outcomes. Fixed-effects or random-effects models based on heterogeneity were used to compute pooled odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Nine high-quality comparative studies encompassing 495 patients (227 RA-DBS vs. 268 NRA-DBS) were synthesized. RA-DBS significantly minimized target point error (MD = -0.31 mm, 95% CI: -0.61 to -0.01; P = 0.04) and significantly reduced the incidence of clinically significant targeting outliers (OR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.51; P = 0.002). Comprehensive three-dimensional vector error was marginally lower in the RA-DBS cohort (MD = -0.70 mm; P = 0.05), whereas two-dimensional radial error and total operating room time, surgical duration, anesthesia time, perioperative complications, and 12-month UPDRS-III motor improvements were statistically equivalent between groups. Subgroup analyses revealed that the spatial precision advantage of RA-DBS was geographically robust across East Asian and Western cohorts, whereas chronological efficiency was heavily dependent on the specific robotic platform used.Compared with conventional frame-based stereotaxy, robot-assisted DBS significantly enhances target point precision and reduces electrode deviations. However, these technical accuracy advantages do not translate into overall clinical superiority, as both approaches yield comparable operative efficiency, perioperative safety, and mid-term motor symptom relief.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42324363What 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.