ArticleRobotic surgery (Auckland)2021
Introducer Design Concepts for an Epicardial Parallel Wire Robot.
Article in Robotic surgery (Auckland), 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.
- Development of a Flexible Parallel Wire Robot for Epicardial Interventions.The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS · 2026Article
- Cable Tension Optimization for an Epicardial Parallel Wire Robot.Journal of medical devices · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiac gene therapies lack effective delivery methods to the myocardium. While direct injection has demonstrated success over a small region, homogenous gene expression requires many injections over a large area. To address this need, we developed a minimally invasive flexible parallel wire robot for epicardial interventions. To accurately deploy it onto the beating heart, an introducer mechanism is required.
methodsTwo mechanisms are presented. Assessment of the robot's positioning, procedure time, and pericardium insertion forces are performed on an artificial beating heart.
resultsSuccessful positioning was demonstrated. The mean procedure time was 230 ± 7 seconds for mechanism I and 259 ± 4 seconds for mechanism II. The mean pericardium insertion force was 2.2 ± 0.4 N anteriorly and 3.1 ± 0.4 N posteriorly.
conclusionIntroducer mechanisms demonstrate feasibility in facilitating the robot's deployment on the epicardium. Pericardium insertion forces and procedure times are consistent and reasonable.
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.