ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2024
The influence of the da Vinci surgical robot on electromagnetic tracking in a clinical environment.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cooperative integrated surgical robots for high-performance targeted therapies.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2026Review
- Toward augmented reality in laparoscopic liver surgery using electromagnetic tracking: a clinical feasibility study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Navigated hepatic tumor resection using intraoperative ultrasound imaging.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026Article
- Mini-review on human-centered assurance in robot-assisted orthopedics and neurosurgery.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2026Review
- Electromagnetic Tracking System for Medical Micro Devices: A Review.Micromachines · 2025Review
- The Integration of Artificial Intelligence into Robotic Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Surgical navigation for targeted retroperitoneal lymph-node removal: a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.EClinicalMedicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly used in surgery for cancer. Reduced overview and loss of anatomical orientation are challenges that might be solved with image-guided surgical navigation using electromagnetic tracking (EMT). However, the robot's presence may distort the electromagnetic field, affecting EMT accuracy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the robot's influence on EMT accuracy. For this purpose, two different electromagnetic field generators were used inside a clinical surgical environment: a table top field generator (TTFG) and a planar field generator (PFG). The position and orientation of sensors within the electromagnetic field were measured using an accurate in-house developed 3D board. Baseline accuracy was measured without the robot, followed by stepwise introduction of potential distortion sources (robot and robotic instruments). The absolute accuracy was determined within the entire 3D board and in the clinical working volume. For the baseline setup, median errors in the entire tracking volume within the 3D board were 0.9 mm and 0.3° (TTFG), and 1.1 mm and 0.4° (PFG). Adding the robot and instruments did not affect the TTFG's position accuracy (p = 0.60), while the PFG's accuracies decreased to 1.5 mm and 0.7° (p < 0.001). For both field generators, when adding robot and instruments, accuracies inside the clinical working volume were higher compared to the entire tracking 3D board volume, 0.7 mm and 0.3° (TTFG), and 1.1 mm and 0.7° (PFG). Introduction of a surgical robot and robotic instruments shows limited distortion of the EMT field, allowing sufficient accuracy for surgical navigation in robotic procedures.
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.