Robot-assisted neurosurgery versus conventional treatment for intracerebral hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this review is to determine the efficacy and safety of robotic surgery for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). PICO question was formulated as: whether robot-assisted neurosurgery is more effective and safer than conventional treatment for ICH with respect to drainage time, complications, operation time, extent of evacuation and neurological function improvement. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Wiley Online, OVID, Embase, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trails, Current Controlled Trials, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), OpenGrey and references of related papers. Key words included robot, robotic, hematoma, hemorrhage and neurosurgery. Then we used Microsoft Excel to collect data. Except from qualitative analysis, we did meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3. 9 papers were included in qualitative synthesis, 6 in meta-analysis for rebleeding rate and 4 in analysis for operative and drainage time. Qualitative synthesis showed shorter operative time and drainage time, a larger extent of evacuation, better neurological function improvement and less complications in robotic group, while meta-analysis suggested that robot-assisted surgery reduced rebleeding rate compared to other surgical procedures, but whether it is superior to conservative treatment in preventing rebleeding still needs more proof. Meta-analysis for operative and drainage time should be explained cautiously because a significant heterogeneity existed and we supposed that differences in baseline characteristics might influence the results. Finally, we drew a conclusion that robotic neurosurgery is a safe and effective approach which is better than conventional surgery or conservative treatment with respect to rebleeding rate, intracranial infection rate and neurological function improvement.