Robotics in neurointerventional surgery: a systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotically performed neurointerventional surgery has the potential to reduce occupational hazards to staff, perform intervention with greater precision, and could be a viable solution for teleoperated neurointerventional procedures. OBJECTIVE: To determine the indication, robotic systems used, efficacy, safety, and the degree of manual assistance required for robotically performed neurointervention. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature up to, and including, articles published on April 12, 2021. Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane register databases were searched using medical subject heading terms to identify reports of robotically performed neurointervention, including diagnostic cerebral angiography and carotid artery intervention. RESULTS: A total of 8 articles treating 81 patients were included. Only one case report used a robotic system for intracranial intervention, the remaining indications being cerebral angiography and carotid artery intervention. Only one study performed a comparison of robotic and manual procedures. Across all studies, the technical success rate was 96% and the clinical success rate was 100%. All cases required a degree of manual assistance. No studies had clearly defined patient selection criteria, reference standards, or index tests, preventing meaningful statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Given the clinical success, it is plausible that robotically performed neurointerventional procedures will eventually benefit patients and reduce occupational hazards for staff; however, there is no high-level efficacy and safety evidence to support this assertion. Limitations of current robotic systems and the challenges that must be overcome to realize the potential for remote teleoperated neurointervention require further investigation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".