ReviewCurrent urology reports2016
Novel Technologies in Urologic Surgery: a Rapidly Changing Scenario.
Review in Current urology reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global research trends and thematic evolution of haptic feedback and force sensing in robot-assisted urologic surgery: a bibliometric and visualization study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Robot-Assisted PSMA-Radioguided Salvage Surgery for Oligorecurrent Prostate Cancer Using the Novel SENSEICancers · 2024Article
- Epidemiological characteristics of 214,063 hospital admissions to adult urological departments in Poland in 2022.Central European journal of urology · 2024Article
- A Systematic Review of New Imaging Technologies for Robotic Prostatectomy: From Molecular Imaging to Augmented Reality.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Preclinical optimization of a diode laser-based clamp-free partial nephrectomy in a large animal model.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Spectral imaging enables contrast agent-free real-time ischemia monitoring in laparoscopic surgery.Science advances · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The introduction of laparoscopy and robotic surgery revolutionized the surgical management of urologic patients. Nonetheless, we live in an era of rapid changes, and we are probably still in the infancy of technology applied to surgery. When considering currently available technologies, there are several unmet needs to be addressed. These include the application of augmented reality, haptic feedback, tissue recognition, distant remote control, miniaturization of surgical instruments, the learning curve typical of the introduction of novel techniques, and excessive costs. In the next few years, evolution in imaging modalities in pre- and intraoperative surgical planning, as well as the introduction of novel minimally invasive platforms, would in part address these issues, substantially improving surgical outcomes. In addition, validated training programs would allow for the safe implementation of novel techniques in the clinical practice. Finally, a reduction in costs would be necessary to make technology affordable and to optimize healthcare resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26874531What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.