ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Stray energy transfer in single-incision robotic surgery.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stray energy injury during robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Trial
- Global research trends in robotic surgery for rectal cancer: a bibliometric and science-mapping analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStray energy transfer from surgical monopolar radiofrequency energy instruments can cause unintended thermal injuries during laparoscopic surgery. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery transfers more stray energy than traditional laparoscopic surgery. There is paucity of published data concerning stray energy during single-incision robotic surgery. The purpose of this study was to quantify stray energy transfer during traditional, multiport robotic surgery (TRS) compared to single-incision robotic surgery (SIRS).
methodsAn in vivo porcine model was used to simulate a multiport or single-incision robotic cholecystectomy (DaVinci Si, Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). A 5 s, open air activation of the monopolar scissors was done on 30 W and 60 W coag mode (ForceTriad, Covidien-Medtronic, Boulder, CO) and Swift Coag effect 3, max power 180 W (VIO 300D, ERBE USA, Marietta, GA). Temperature of the tissue (°C) adjacent to the tip of the assistant grasper or the camera was measured with a thermal camera (E95, FLIR Systems, Wilsonville, OR) to quantify stray energy transfer.
resultsStray energy transfer was greater in the SIRS setup compared to TRS setup at the assistant grasper (11.6 ± 3.3 °C vs. 8.4 ± 1.6 °C, p = 0.013). Reducing power from 60 to 30 W significantly reduced stray energy transfer in SIRS (15.3 ± 3.4 °C vs. 11.6 ± 3.3 °C, p = 0.023), but not significantly for TRS (9.4 ± 2.5 °C vs. 8.4 ± 1.6 °C, p = 0.278). The use of a constant voltage regulating generator also minimized stray energy transfer for both SIRS (0.7 ± 0.4 °C, p < 0.001) and TRS (0.7 ± 0.4 °C, p < 0.001).
conclusionsMore stray energy transfer occurs during single-incision robotic surgery than multiport robotic surgery. Utilizing a constant voltage regulating generator minimized stray energy transfer for both setups. These data can be used to guide robotic surgeons in their use of safe, surgical energy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.