Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

CorPath GRX robotic system achieves 87% technical success rate in cerebral aneurysm proceduresRobotic systems show success in treating brain aneurysms

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that CorPath GRX shows technical feasibility in aneurysm procedures but requires more comparative data.

This meta-analysis evaluates the technical performance of the CorPath GRX robotic system for neurovascular procedures, specifically focusing on cerebral aneurysm embolization and diagnostic cerebral angiography. The analysis synthesized data from 265 patients to assess procedural success, duration, and radiation exposure.

The primary finding is an overall technical success rate of 87% (95% CI: 75%-96%). Subgroup analyses showed a 94% success rate for embolization (95% CI: 90%-96%) and a 76% success rate for angiography (95% CI: 63%-87%). Procedural metrics included a mean total procedural time of 122.58 minutes, robotic operation time of 60.68 minutes, and fluoroscopy time of 30.70 minutes. Radiation dose was reported at 1,340.84 mGy (95% CI: 485.65-2,196.03).

The authors note significant limitations, including the use of small-sample, non-comparative, single-arm studies and high heterogeneity in radiation dose data (I^2 = 97.0%). Consequently, the evidence is considered preliminary and hypothesis-generating rather than a confirmed standard of care. While the system appears technically capable for these procedures, larger prospective multicenter trials are required to establish definitive clinical utility.

Treating a cerebral aneurysm, which is a bulge in a blood vessel in the brain, requires precision. New data looks at using the CorPath GRX robotic system to perform these procedures and diagnostic imaging. The study found an overall technical success rate of 87% for patients undergoing these treatments.

In specific groups, the results were even more distinct. Patients undergoing embolization (a procedure to block blood flow into the aneurysm) saw a 94% success rate. Those receiving diagnostic angiography had a 76% success rate. The average total time for these procedures was about 123 minutes.

While the robot shows it is technically capable of performing these tasks, there are important notes to keep in mind. Because the data comes from small, non-comparative studies, the evidence is currently considered preliminary. For example, radiation dose results were inconsistent across different cases. More large-scale trials are needed before this can be called a standard way to treat patients.

What this means for you:
Robotic systems show high success rates for brain aneurysm procedures, but more research is needed to confirm safety.

Common questions

How successful is the robotic system for brain aneurysms?

The study found an overall technical success rate of 87% when using the CorPath GRX robotic system. Specifically, the success rate was 94% for embolization procedures and 76% for diagnostic angiography.

Is this robotic system the standard of care?

No, it is not yet an evidence-based standard of care. Because the data comes from small, non-comparative studies, more large and multi-center trials are needed to confirm its use for patients.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 265
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedJul 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
The CorPath GRX robotic system has recently been extended from coronary interventions to neurovascular procedures, including cerebral aneurysm embolization and diagnostic cerebral angiography. However, current evidence consists predominantly of small-sample, single-arm studies, and quantitative synthesis of key outcomes-technical success, operative times, and radiation dose-with refinement by procedure type remains lacking. This study was guided by three prespecified research questions: (1) What is the pooled technical success rate of CorPath GRX-assisted cerebral aneurysm embolization and diagnostic angiography? (2) What are the pooled operative times and radiation doses associated with these procedures? (3) Do these outcomes differ significantly between embolization and angiography subgroups? We therefore conducted a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of the CorPath GRX system in these two core neurovascular applications. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to May 1, 2026, for single-arm studies evaluating CorPath GRX-assisted neurovascular interventions. The primary outcomes were technical success rate, total procedural time, robotic operation time, fluoroscopy time, and radiation dose. A random-effects model was applied when substantial heterogeneity was present (I² ≥ 50%). Subgroup analyses were performed by procedure type (embolization vs. angiography), country/region, sample size, and study design. In the present evaluation, methodological rigor was assessed against the standards set forth in the JBI checklist for case series. Seven studies comprising 265 patients were included. The pooled technical success rate was 87% (95% CI: 75%-96%), with 94% (95% CI: 90%-96%, I² = 0.0%) in the embolization subgroup and 76% (95% CI: 63%-87%, I² = 69.4%) in the angiography subgroup. The pooled total procedural time, robotic operation time, and fluoroscopy time were 122.58 min (95% CI: 112.81-132.36), 60.68 min (95% CI: 44.40-76.97), and 30.70 min (95% CI: 18.99-42.41), respectively. The pooled radiation dose (three studies, air kerma) was 1,340.84 mGy (95% CI: 485.65-2,196.03), with high heterogeneity (I² = 97.0%). Subgroup analyses revealed that procedure type and study design significantly influenced operative times and technical success rate. JBI assessment identified six studies as high quality and one study as low quality This systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis provides preliminary, hypothesis-generating evidence that the CorPath GRX system is technically capable of performing both cerebral aneurysm embolization and diagnostic cerebral angiography in carefully selected patients, with encouraging performance observed in the embolization subgroup in early-stage experiences. However, all available evidence derives from small-sample, non-comparative, single-arm studies. The substantial heterogeneity across outcomes (I² > 60% for most endpoints) further underscores that these pooled estimates are exploratory and not definitive. The pooled radiation dose (based on only three studies with high heterogeneity) remains inconclusive. Robotic-assisted neurovascular procedures should therefore be regarded as a novel, technology-driven approach with demonstrated procedural feasibility in highly selected, early-stage clinical contexts, rather than an evidence-based standard of care. Future prospective, multicenter, comparative studies with standardized definitions and systematic reporting of learning curves and conversion rates are urgently needed to define its incremental clinical value.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.