ArticleIEEE transactions on medical robotics and bionics2026
A Pneumatically Actuated Robotic Assistant for MRI-Guided Stereotactic Neurosurgery.
Article in IEEE transactions on medical robotics and bionics, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper presents the development and cadaveric evaluation of a pneumatically actuated robotic assistant for MRI-guided stereotactic neurosurgery. The robot features two coaxial arcs that provide four degrees of freedom to position and orient a needle within an MRI scanner. It is driven by custom-designed MR-Safe pneumatic stepper motors and powered by in-room compressed medical air, enabling precise interventions under intraoperative MRI guidance. To improve anatomical visualization, two custom MR imaging coils were developed and integrated with the system. A dedicated clinical workflow was also proposed for robot-assisted stereotactic procedures under MRI-guidance. Targeting accuracy was first assessed in free space using an optical tracking system, yielding mean absolute errors of 0.97 ± 0.42 mm for tip position and 0.46 ± 0.23° for needle angle. System-level accuracy was then evaluated in MRI-guided phantom studies, showing errors of 1.38 ± 0.80 mm in tip position and 1.08 ± 0.67° in angle. Finally, a cadaver study validated the clinical workflow, with observed errors of 2.11 mm in position and 3.32° in angle. Quantitative imaging analysis confirmed minimal image degradation, with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) variation below 12.26% and 2D geometric distortion under 0.20%.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.