ArticleGland surgery2021
Multicenter comparative study of three "non-destructive" methods of detecting the cleanliness of the da Vinci surgical robotic instrument.
Article in Gland surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An automatic weighing device for measuring the consumption of cleaning agents in mechanical cleaning equipment.PloS one · 2026Article
- Fabrication and application of continuous douche for Da Vinci surgical robot arm.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Evaluation of microbial occurrence in reusable robotic instruments for minimally invasive surgery: A pilot study.PloS one · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe robotic instrument of the da Vinci surgical system determines the accuracy of robotic-assisted surgery, However, the most effective cleaning method of robotic equipment is a challenge for healthcare professionals. This study compared three da Vinci robot-assisted surgery manipulators to detect the effect of "non-destructive" testing of the cleaning effect by two different methods.
methodsThe post-surgical cleaning of the da Vinci robotic instruments in the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University and the Shenzhen Second People's Hospital was performed using two different processes from January 2019 to January 2020: manual joint automatic ultrasonic cleaning and automatic mechanical cleaning. The efficacy of visual estimation, the residual protein assay (quantitative) and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) biological biofluorescence detection of the cleanliness of the mechanical instrument's work (distal working end) surface and the shaft's inner chamber was compared. If the cleaning effect of any position on the surface or inner cavity of the manipulator did not qualify, the entire robotic instrument was judged as disqualified.
resultsA total of 198 cases of da Vinci robotic instrument postoperative cleanliness data were collected. The qualifying rates of automatic ultrasonic cleaning were 96.97% by visual estimation, 93.94% by residual protein assay and 60.61% by ATP biological fluorescence detection. The respective rates for automatic mechanical cleaning were 100% by visual estimation, 90.91% by residual protein assay and 66.67% by ATP biological fluorescence detection.
conclusionsThe cleaning of the da Vinci robotic instrument detected by "non-destructive" residual protein assay or ATP biological fluorescence detection is more accurate than visual estimation.
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.