Robot-assisted versus manually guided stereotactic biopsy for intracranial lesions - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Fernando Cotrim Gomes, Felipe Takamori Oliveira, Diego Dias Freire Carvalho, Flávia Baldotto Zampirolo, Antônio Gaudi Pinheiro Vorcaro Garcia, Anna Laura Lima Larcipretti, Alice Campos Meneses, Isabella Cristina Santos de Castro, Marcio Yuri Ferreira, Dan Zimelewicz Oberman, Allan Dias Polverini, João Paulo Almeida
{"title":"Robot-assisted versus manually guided stereotactic biopsy for intracranial lesions - a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Fernando Cotrim Gomes, Felipe Takamori Oliveira, Diego Dias Freire Carvalho, Flávia Baldotto Zampirolo, Antônio Gaudi Pinheiro Vorcaro Garcia, Anna Laura Lima Larcipretti, Alice Campos Meneses, Isabella Cristina Santos de Castro, Marcio Yuri Ferreira, Dan Zimelewicz Oberman, Allan Dias Polverini, João Paulo Almeida","doi":"10.1007/s10143-024-03121-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stereotactic biopsies are essential for obtaining accurate histopathological analysis to guide treatment decisions for deep-seated brain lesions. Manually guided methods, while commonly used and highly precise, can be limited by potential inaccuracies and insufficient tissue sampling. The emerging robot-assisted (RA) techniques offer enhanced precision and could address these limitations for improved accuracy. We aimed to compare safety and effectiveness of RA stereotactic biopsies to traditional techniques. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science using terms related to robotic biopsies and intracranial lesions. Eligible studies compared robot-assisted procedures to traditional techniques. Data extracted included diagnostic yield, complication rates, and accuracy. Quality assessment of studies was performed with the ROBINS-I tool, and a random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Five studies were included, encompassing 913 patients (robot-assisted n = 434, traditional n = 479). Robot-assisted biopsies demonstrated higher diagnostic yield (OR 2.06, 95% CI [1.01,4.21], p = 0.04), and improved trajectory accuracy, with entry point error (EPE) reduced by 0.42 mm (95% CI [-0.59,-0.26], p < 0.001) and target point error (TPE) reduced by 0.93 mm (95% CI [-1.80,-0.06], p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications or operative time. RA stereotactic biopsies may improve diagnostic yield and accuracy in targeting intracranial lesions without increasing complication rates or operative time. The limited number of studies and potential biases suggest a need for further high-quality, prospective research to ascertain these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":19184,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgical Review","volume":"47 1","pages":"880"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgical Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-024-03121-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Stereotactic biopsies are essential for obtaining accurate histopathological analysis to guide treatment decisions for deep-seated brain lesions. Manually guided methods, while commonly used and highly precise, can be limited by potential inaccuracies and insufficient tissue sampling. The emerging robot-assisted (RA) techniques offer enhanced precision and could address these limitations for improved accuracy. We aimed to compare safety and effectiveness of RA stereotactic biopsies to traditional techniques. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science using terms related to robotic biopsies and intracranial lesions. Eligible studies compared robot-assisted procedures to traditional techniques. Data extracted included diagnostic yield, complication rates, and accuracy. Quality assessment of studies was performed with the ROBINS-I tool, and a random-effects model meta-analysis was performed. Five studies were included, encompassing 913 patients (robot-assisted n = 434, traditional n = 479). Robot-assisted biopsies demonstrated higher diagnostic yield (OR 2.06, 95% CI [1.01,4.21], p = 0.04), and improved trajectory accuracy, with entry point error (EPE) reduced by 0.42 mm (95% CI [-0.59,-0.26], p < 0.001) and target point error (TPE) reduced by 0.93 mm (95% CI [-1.80,-0.06], p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications or operative time. RA stereotactic biopsies may improve diagnostic yield and accuracy in targeting intracranial lesions without increasing complication rates or operative time. The limited number of studies and potential biases suggest a need for further high-quality, prospective research to ascertain these findings.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurosurgical Review
Neurosurgical Review 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
191
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The goal of Neurosurgical Review is to provide a forum for comprehensive reviews on current issues in neurosurgery. Each issue contains up to three reviews, reflecting all important aspects of one topic (a disease or a surgical approach). Comments by a panel of experts within the same issue complete the topic. By providing comprehensive coverage of one topic per issue, Neurosurgical Review combines the topicality of professional journals with the indepth treatment of a monograph. Original papers of high quality are also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信