Forces exerted during microneurosurgery: a cadaver study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A prerequisite for the successful design and use of robots in neurosurgery is knowledge of the forces exerted by surgeons during neurosurgical procedures. The aim of the present cadaver study was to measure the surgical instrument forces exerted during microneurosurgery. METHODS: An experimental apparatus was set up consisting of a platform for human cadaver brains, a Leica microscope to provide illumination and magnification, and a Quanser 6 Degrees-Of-Freedom Telepresence System for tissue manipulation and force measurements. RESULTS: The measured forces varied significantly depending on the region of the brain (P = 0.016) and the maneuver performed (P < 0.0001). Moreover, blunt arachnoid dissection was associated with greater force exertion than sharp dissection (0.22 N vs. 0.03 N; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The forces necessary to manipulate brain tissue were surprisingly low and varied depending on the anatomical structure being manipulated, and the maneuver performed. Knowledge of such forces could well increase the safety of microsurgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".