ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robot-Assisted Mechanical Thrombectomy for Neurointerventional Surgery: An Exploratory Scoping Review.
Article 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted endovascular technologies have emerged as a promising innovation in neurointerventional surgery, particularly for mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke. This scoping review aims to map and synthesize the current evidence on robot-assisted mechanical thrombectomy, focusing on technical feasibility, preliminary performance outcomes, and existing limitations.A scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science without date or language restrictions. Studies evaluating robotic assistance in mechanical thrombectomy across preclinical and clinical settings were included.Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including 13 preclinical studies and only 1 clinical study. Robotic systems demonstrated promising technical success and recanalization rates reported in controlled settings, although direct comparisons with conventional manual techniques remain limited. Additional benefits included reduced procedure times, improved navigation precision, decreased operator fatigue, and significant reductions in radiation exposure. However, most evidence remains experimental, with limited clinical validation.Robot-assisted mechanical thrombectomy appears technically feasible in preclinical and early clinical settings, with potential advantages for procedural safety and access to stroke care. However, the current evidence remains limited and predominantly preclinical, and robust clinical trials are required before widespread clinical adoption. These findings should therefore be interpreted as hypothesis-generating.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42474594What 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.