Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • Low-Field MRI
    • Alzheimer Disease
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • View All
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR Awards, New Junior Editors, and more. Read the latest AJNR updates

OtherSTATE OF PRACTICE

Perspectives on Remote Robotic-Assisted Stroke Treatment: A Commentary Paper

Arturo Consoli, Nicole Mariantonia Cancelliere, Guillaume Charbonnier, Julian Spears, Thomas R. Marotta and Vitor Mendes Pereira
American Journal of Neuroradiology January 2024, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A8085
Arturo Consoli
aFrom the Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology Department (A.C.), Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France
bDivision of Neurosurgery (A.C., N.M.C., G.C., J.S., T.R.M., V.M.P.), Department of Surgery, RADIS Lab, Li Ka-shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Arturo Consoli
Nicole Mariantonia Cancelliere
bDivision of Neurosurgery (A.C., N.M.C., G.C., J.S., T.R.M., V.M.P.), Department of Surgery, RADIS Lab, Li Ka-shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nicole Mariantonia Cancelliere
Guillaume Charbonnier
bDivision of Neurosurgery (A.C., N.M.C., G.C., J.S., T.R.M., V.M.P.), Department of Surgery, RADIS Lab, Li Ka-shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
cInterventional Neuroradiology Department (G.C.), Besançon University Hospital, Besançon, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julian Spears
bDivision of Neurosurgery (A.C., N.M.C., G.C., J.S., T.R.M., V.M.P.), Department of Surgery, RADIS Lab, Li Ka-shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Julian Spears
Thomas R. Marotta
bDivision of Neurosurgery (A.C., N.M.C., G.C., J.S., T.R.M., V.M.P.), Department of Surgery, RADIS Lab, Li Ka-shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
dDivision of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Neuroradiology (T.R.M.), Department of Medical Imaging, St Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Thomas R. Marotta
Vitor Mendes Pereira
bDivision of Neurosurgery (A.C., N.M.C., G.C., J.S., T.R.M., V.M.P.), Department of Surgery, RADIS Lab, Li Ka-shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Vitor Mendes Pereira
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

SUMMARY: The proved feasibility of robotic-assisted endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms has stimulated the idea of a potential application of remote robotics for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. The possibility of developing a more advanced remote-controlled robotic system capable of performing a complete mechanical thrombectomy procedure would help bridge the health care gap of lack of technical expertise in isolated areas. This possibility could allow a more equitable access to mechanical thrombectomy to a larger number of patients and be a breakthrough for acute ischemic stroke care worldwide. Many aspects around the technical, human, financial, and regulatory requirements should be discussed to implement remote robotic-assisted procedures. In this State of Practice article, we aimed to outline the major challenges that must be considered, as well as proposed solutions. However, different solutions may be applied in different health care systems on the basis of the availability of human and financial resources.

ABBREVIATIONS:

AIS
acute ischemic stroke
GA
general anesthesia
MT
mechanical thrombectomy
RRAP
remote robotic-assisted procedure

The development of endovascular robotics in the past decade may represent a major advance in minimally invasive treatment of vascular diseases. Some advantages have been previously described, such as the reduced radiation exposure and orthopedic strain on the operators,1⇓-3 as well as enhanced technical accuracy and precision.4 In 2019, embolization of an intracranial aneurysm using the Corindus CorPath-GRX system (Siemens) marked the first human robotic-assisted procedure in the neuroendovascular field.5 This soon stimulated thought and discussion of a future application for remote robotic-assisted procedures (RRAPs) for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) treatment.1,6⇓-8 The aim of this article was to discuss what additional challenges should be considered to build a proper roadmap for new generations of robotic systems and remote procedures. We propose a streamlined discussion on the following topics: geosocial unmet needs, remote site preparation and remote team selection, procedural challenges, training, postprocedural management, and regulatory issues.

Geosocial Unmet Needs

One of the main drivers for the development of remote robotic neurointerventional procedures is to address the unequal access in AIS care to mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for patients living in isolated or rural territories. Indeed, most United States9,10 and European populations do not have timely access to MT treatment, particularly those living in rural areas.11,12 This geographic problem is exacerbated in larger countries with wider distances between cities. The inhomogeneous geographic distribution of stroke centers,1 the risk of creating new low-volume centers,7 the challenges of low-income countries for the needed expertise,4 and the lack of human resources are the most accredited causes of this inequality. Therefore, the implementation of RRAP could be considered a potential response to this inequality. However, several issues must be addressed before bringing RRAP for stroke to actuality.

Procedural Challenges

Telepresence System.

The physical distance between the remote operator and bedside team will demand effective real-time communication between sites. A telecommunication system that can reliably transmit audio and visual information between sites, including the live radiographic imaging, will be required for the remote operation to be performed safely. Minimum telepresence system (Cisco) requirements will need to be defined, such as the number and positions of cameras and microphones to give the operator full confidence and maximum safety during the intervention. We suggest a minimum requirement of a moveable, side camera above the patient to allow the remote operator to assess the condition of the catheters and devices, to monitor the incision site, and to assess the patient for changes in symptoms. An ideal setup would also include a camera for room view and a second side camera to visualize the robotic arm and supervise loading and unloading maneuvers and perfusions. Also, a private audio feed between the remote operator and bedside technologist will be important to effectively communicate the next steps of the procedure, such as when to exchange devices. A room microphone and speaker may be useful to provide the remote operator additional information on the room environment and the possibility of communicating to the whole team or other team members than the bedside technologist. We strongly believe that these challenges should not be overlooked and should be balanced with the safety limits of defined transmission lag.

Angiographic Imaging Control.

During a neuroendovascular procedure, the C-arm can be controlled by the local physician or an x-ray technologist. Fluoroscopy and intermittent DSA runs must be acquired for navigation, and appropriate working projections must be selected to facilitate navigation through tortuous vascular anatomy. Communication of these desired processes may be more challenging in a remote scenario, so the idea of providing remote control of the angiographic system to the remote physician is suggested to make procedures faster, reduce the radiation dose (for both the patient and the bedside technologist), and improve safety. Autonomous control of working projections by an intelligent system may also aid faster navigation, though no specific solutions are currently available.

Robotic System.

Finally, the minimum requirements of robotic capabilities should be considered for maximum remote safety and success. The current version of the Corindus CorPath-GRX system allowed simultaneous control of only 1 microcatheter with 1 guidewire or device. This control means that a local physician was required to perform navigation of the aortic arch to place the guide catheter in the internal carotid or vertebral artery at the neck. It also precludes the ability to use a combined approach or contact aspiration for MT.2,13 Robotic control of a full triaxial system composed of 4 devices should be considered for maximum safety in the next-generation robotic systems. Additional functionality such as control of aspiration or inflation of balloons should also be considered to give the physician full control of the stroke intervention.

The robotic-assisted approach for neurovascular disease treatment has been mostly used for intracranial aneurysm embolization, and for these procedures, all patients were under general anesthesia (GA).4,5 The choice of GA for future RRAPs, or at least in the early phases, is suggested to ensure patient safety during the procedure, because movement of the patient with a fixed robotic system may carry an increased risk of dissection. A secondary advantage of using GA would be to use the imaging to improve artificial intelligence–based algorithms for automatic correction of the robotic movements, which require minimum motion artifacts. Indeed, engineering and mechatronic implementation are adding a large contribution to the robotic-based approach with encouraging results in terms of automated navigation to reduce the occurrence of unexpected movement of the devices,3 which may be of great use in a remote setting.

Connectivity.

The RRAP will be entirely based on connection systems ensuring a reliable, fast, and stable transmission of data. Although RRAPs have been performed, none of these ever included a remote neuro-endovascular procedure. Five RRAPs of percutaneous coronary interventions were successfully performed in India in 2018,14 using an optical fiber connection with the CorPath-GRX system, whereas 5G has been successfully used for orthopedic screw placement between Beijing and Zhejiang through the TiRobot system (Tinavi Medical Technologies Co., Beijing, China).15 Some groups have tested latency requirements for RRAP, and thresholds of non-perceptibility ranged between <40016 and <250 ms;17 however, these should be validated in the context of a stroke procedure because neurosurgical procedures carry higher risks. Furthermore, in our opinion, these studies were incomplete because latency is not the only metric that will define safety. Other parameters such as bandwidth, jitter, the use of virtual private networks, and the transmission pathway affect the network performance1,8 and should be comprehensively studied. We foresee a rigorous testing in each new remote location to find the most reliable and effective connectivity network to link to the operator site with an acceptable latency (<250 ms). A primary network should be used as a default and tested constantly, and a secondary network should be in place in case the first one fails during a procedure.

Nevertheless, several questions should be addressed before accurately assessing latency. These include but are not limited to the telecommunication system requirements, the quality of the angiographic images to be transferred, the transmission pathway, the digital weight of the new-generation robot control, and other potential tools to be added (such as the remote C-arm control). Indeed, these will determine the number of data packages to be transmitted, which will affect overall latency.

Remote Site Preparation and Team Selection

The preliminary in situ development of robotic-assisted procedures helped to define the basic requirements for a novel approach to neuroendovascular procedures, which demanded new workflows and a procedural setup.4 Although RRAPs could spread the expertise of interventional stroke to remote areas in need,7 a physical distance would be added between the robotic operator and the remote site. Thus, this would require the presence of a stroke care environment (including a Stroke Unit, Intensive Care Unit, and vascular neurology support) at the remote site to properly manage the acute and subacute phases of patients with AIS. Rehabilitation services should also be available to assist patients who do not make a full recovery after endovascular treatment.18

Future versions of endovascular robotic systems should overcome the limitation of current, approved robotic systems that do not support all steps of a MT procedure, thus requiring some steps to be performed manually by an on-site operator, including obtaining vascular access, navigation of the guiding catheter, stent placement, and/or angioplasty maneuvers.1,2,7 Some authors have suggested that any type of interventionalist, not necessarily on-site but on-call, could be a plausible solution.7 Some of these tasks, such as obtaining vascular access, could be performed by another qualified member of the on-site team. In a remote scenario where the operating physician is not in the room, there will need to be a shift in roles for the bedside team. In our opinion, the core team for RRAPs should include the following: a remote, experienced robotic operator, a trained robotic bedside technologist, a supporting physician, an anesthesiologist, and a stroke neurologist locally or on telestroke (https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/stroke-and-telemedicine/about/pac-20395081). In this new scenario, the remote operator would be linked to a local “clinical coordinator” or telestroke for patient selection and to a “technical coordinator” (the bedside technician) to plan the setup for the procedure. Our suggestions for the various team members’ roles in a local-versus-remote robotic-assisted scenario are shown in Figs 1 and 2.

FIG 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1.

Current scenario and description of the roles of each member involved in neuroendovascular procedures for acute stroke.

FIG 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2.

Suggested members and role changes to support remote robotic stroke procedures: a proposal of a new distribution of roles and tasks.

Training

RRAP will require more rigorous training for both the remote operator and the on-site team. It is mandatory to create a solid bond of trust6 and develop effective communication between the 2 teams to ensure proper management during the procedure. We suggest that simulated rehearsals be regularly performed to maintain familiarity with the robotic system and the remote workflow. These will also be important to establish communication protocols, verify proper functioning of the robotic system, and practice safety protocols such as the workflow for manual takeover.5 Simulation-based technology could represent a viable solution for training to flatten the learning curve and reduce technical complications.19 However, a precise logbook and a definite training protocol20 will be necessary for future RRAPs.

Regulatory Hurdles

Although the technical feasibility of RRAPs is currently being tested with some encouraging results, several regulatory considerations must be discussed. State licensing and facility credentialing have already represented a limitation for remote imaging in the past and should be considered for remote procedures as well. Although the cost-effectiveness of RRAPs cannot yet be assessed due to lack of data, some simulation-based models have suggested that the introduction of remote stroke care has the potential to improve clinical outcomes and reduce stroke-related costs to the health care system.21

Human feasibility studies should be performed after rigorous technical and clinical validation, and clinical trials for stroke RRAP treatment could then be designed with the support from the regulatory bodies to show the noninferiority of remote procedures.6 Indeed, the management of potential intraprocedural complications would require the presence of an on-site or on-call interventionalist,7 whereas clear indications about the medical/technical responsibility will need solid and constructive discussions.1 Furthermore, comprehensive guidelines will necessarily have to be redacted under the guidance of the international scientific societies, to account for all the possible political and regulatory issues.

CONCLUSIONS

We are not yet ready for prime time. There are various considerations in preparation for RRAPs, including telecommunication system and robotic system requirements for increased remote control capabilities, such as triaxial control, and understanding of safety limits. Remote stroke treatment simulations should be performed before a clinical attempt. The potential benefit of remote stroke intervention is real, and it can be transformative. Remote areas in countries with vast geographies or in developing countries with lack of centers and professionals may have a unique opportunity to finally have access to acute stroke care.

Footnotes

  • Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text and PDF of this article at www.ajnr.org.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Beaman CB,
    2. Kaneko N,
    3. Meyers PM, et al
    . A review of robotic interventional neuroradiology. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2021;42:808–14 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A6976 pmid:33541906
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Crinnion W,
    2. Jackson B,
    3. Sood A, et al
    . Robotics in neurointerventional surgery: a systematic review of the literature. J Neurointerv Surg 2022;14:539–45 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-018096 pmid:34799439
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Britz GW,
    2. Panesar SS,
    3. Falb P, et al
    . Neuroendovascular-specific engineering modifications to the CorPath GRX Robotic System. J Neurosurg 2019;133:1830–36 doi:10.3171/2019.9.JNS192113 pmid:31783367
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Mendes Pereira V,
    2. Nicholson P,
    3. Cancelliere NM, et al
    . Feasibility of robot-assisted neuroendovascular procedures. J Neurosurg 2021;136:992–1004 doi:10.3171/2021.1.JNS203617 pmid:34560642
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Mendes Pereira V,
    2. Cancelliere NM,
    3. Nicholson P, et al
    . First-in-human, robotic-assisted neuroendovascular intervention. J Neurointerv Surg 2020;12:338–40 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2019-015671.rep pmid:32132138
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Goyal M,
    2. Sutherland GR,
    3. Lama S, et al
    . Neurointerventional robotics: challenges and opportunities. Clin Neuroradiol 2020;30:203–08 doi:10.1007/s00062-020-00913-2 pmid:32607626
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Panesar SS,
    2. Volpi JJ,
    3. Lumsden A, et al
    . Telerobotic stroke intervention: a novel solution to the care dissemination dilemma. J Neurosurg 2019;132:971–78 doi:10.3171/2019.8.JNS191739 pmid:31783366
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Miyachi S,
    2. Nagano Y,
    3. Kawaguchi R, et al
    . Remote surgery using a neuroendovascular intervention support robot equipped with a sensing function: experimental verification. Asian J Neurosurg 2021;16:363–66 doi:10.4103/ajns.AJNS_77_21 pmid:34268165
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Adeoye O,
    2. Albright KC,
    3. Carr BG, et al
    . Geographic access to acute stroke care in the United States. Stroke 2014;45:3019–24 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.006293 pmid:25158773
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Bulwa Z,
    2. Chen M
    . Stroke center designations, neurointerventionalist demand, and the finances of stroke thrombectomy in the United States. Neurology 2021;97:S17–24 doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000012780 pmid:34785600
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Aguiar de Sousa D,
    2. von Martial R,
    3. Abilleira S, et al
    . Access to and delivery of acute ischaemic stroke treatments: a survey of national scientific societies and stroke experts in 44 European countries. Eur Stroke J 2019;4:13–28 doi:10.1177/2396987318786023 pmid:31165091
    CrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Garcia-Tornel A,
    2. Millan M,
    3. Rubiera M, et al
    ; RACECAT Trial Investigators. Workflows and outcomes in patients with suspected large vessel occlusion stroke triaged in urban and nonurban areas. Stroke 2022;53:3728–40 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.122.040768 pmid:36259411
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Cancelliere NM,
    2. Lynch J,
    3. Nicholson P, et al
    . Robotic-assisted intracranial aneurysm treatment: 1 year follow-up imaging and clinical outcomes. J Neurointerv Surg 2022;14:1229–33 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-017865 pmid:34911735
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Patel TM,
    2. Shah SC,
    3. Pancholy SB
    . Long distance tele-robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of first-in-human experience. EClinicalMedicine 2019;14:53–58 doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.07.017 pmid:31709402
    CrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Tian W,
    2. Fan M,
    3. Zeng C, et al
    . Telerobotic spinal surgery based on 5G network: the first 12 cases. Neurospine 2020;17:114–20 doi:10.14245/ns.1938454.227 pmid:32252160
    CrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Legeza P,
    2. Britz GW,
    3. Shah A, et al
    . Impact of network performance on remote robotic-assisted endovascular interventions in porcine model. J Robot Surg 2022;16:29–35 doi:10.1007/s11701-021-01196-6 pmid:33550514
    CrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Madder RD,
    2. VanOosterhout S,
    3. Mulder A, et al
    . Network latency and long-distance robotic telestenting: exploring the potential impact of network delays on telestenting performance. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2020;95:914–19 doi:10.1002/ccd.28425 pmid:31410958
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Dusenbury W,
    2. Mathiesen C,
    3. Whaley M, et al
    ; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing and the Stroke Council. Ideal foundational requirements for stroke program development and growth: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Stroke 2023;54:e175–87 doi:10.1161/STR.0000000000000424 pmid:36748462
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Yamaki VN,
    2. Cancelliere NM,
    3. Nicholson P, et al
    . Biomodex patient-specific brain aneurysm models: the value of simulation for first in-human experiences using new devices and robotics. J Neurointerv Surg 2021;13:272–77 doi:10.1136/neurintsurg-2020-015990 pmid:32601259
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Day AL,
    2. Siddiqui AH,
    3. Meyers PM, et al
    . Training standards in neuroendovascular surgery: program accreditation and practitioner certification. Stroke 2017;48:2318–25 doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.016560 pmid:28706116
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Sanmartin MX,
    2. Katz JM,
    3. Eusemann C, et al
    . Cost-effectiveness of remote robotic mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke. J Neurosurg 2023;139:721–31 doi:10.3171/2022.12.JNS222115 pmid:36670531
    CrossRefPubMed
  • Received September 13, 2023.
  • Accepted after revision October 26, 2023.
  • © 2024 by American Journal of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Perspectives on Remote Robotic-Assisted Stroke Treatment: A Commentary Paper
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
Arturo Consoli, Nicole Mariantonia Cancelliere, Guillaume Charbonnier, Julian Spears, Thomas R. Marotta, Vitor Mendes Pereira
Perspectives on Remote Robotic-Assisted Stroke Treatment: A Commentary Paper
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jan 2024, DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A8085

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Perspectives on Remote Robotic-Assisted Stroke Treatment: A Commentary Paper
Arturo Consoli, Nicole Mariantonia Cancelliere, Guillaume Charbonnier, Julian Spears, Thomas R. Marotta, Vitor Mendes Pereira
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jan 2024, DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A8085
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Purchase

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • ABBREVIATIONS:
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • State of Practice: A Report from the Inaugural SNIS Neurointerventional Oncology Summit
  • State of Practice of Neuroradiology Fellowship Programs: A Comprehensive Guide for Neuroradiology Fellowship Program Directors
  • Large core trial: State of Practice
Show more STATE OF PRACTICE

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner
  • Book Reviews

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire