ArticlePloS one2024
Evaluation of microbial occurrence in reusable robotic instruments for minimally invasive surgery: A pilot study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Environmental stewardship and robotic surgery: innovation without compromise.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- SAGES tool for assessing robotic surgery systems (STARSS).Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Recent Advances in Handheld and Robotic Bioprinting Approach for Tissue Engineering.Advanced materials technologies · 2025Article
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
In recent decades, minimally invasive surgery has become the favoured surgical technique, with increasing utilisation of robotic surgery to enhance patient outcomes. However, the design complexity of surgical robotic instruments can pose challenges in maintaining adequate cleaning, disinfection and sterilisation-particularly of the device's interior. In our hospital, robotic instruments are reused for a maximum of ten successive patients, following the manufacturer's guidelines. To the best of our knowledge, neither the manufacturer nor ISO standards have specified any methods to determine the sterility of robotic instruments after cleaning, disinfection and sterilisation procedures. In a small pilot study, we used a locally developed protocol to evaluate the sterility of 20 da Vinci SI robotic instruments, with the aim of determining whether the recommended cleaning, disinfection and sterilisation process is adequate to achieve safe usage in subsequent patients. None of the 20 instruments showed viable micro-organisms, therefore the robotic instruments were considered sterile, and suitable for re-use. We recommend our protocol to other hospitals, to be used as an essential control element in the assessment of their unique reprocessing technique for robotic instruments.
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.