This study compares the clinical efficacy and outcomes of three surgical techniques-robot-assisted stereotactic assistance (ROSA), neuroendoscopy, and craniotomy-in the removal of intracranial hematomas in patients with cerebral hemorrhage affecting the basal ganglia. This retrospective study included 110 patients, who were grouped based on the surgical method used: 40 patients in the ROSA group, 50 in the craniotomy group, and 20 in the endoscopy group. We then compared the outcomes of the ROSA group with those of the craniotomy and endoscopy groups. Compared with the craniotomy group, the ROSA group had a significantly shorter operation time, higher hematoma clearance rate, lesser intraoperative blood loss, fewer postoperative pulmonary infections, and lower modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at discharge and > 3 months after discharge. Compared with the endoscopy group, the ROSA group had a shorter operation time, lesser intraoperative blood loss, and fewer intraoperative blood transfusions. The ROSA robot provided superior surgical outcomes and patient prognoses compared to craniotomy and neuroendoscopy for the removal of intracranial hematomas in patients with basal ganglia cerebral hemorrhage.

Basal ganglia; Clinical efficacy; Craniotomy; Intracranial hematoma; Neuroendoscopy; Prognosis; Robot-assisted stereotactic assistance.

Declarations. Ethics Statement: The Ethics Committee of Qingdao Municipal Hospital reviewed and approved the study involving human participants. Written informed consent for participation was not provided by the participants' legal guardians/next of kin because this is a retrospective study and all data were anonymous. Written informed consent for publication of potentially identifiable images or data included in this article was not obtained from the individuals or legal guardians/next of kin of minors. Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests.