ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2024
Visual cues of soft-tissue behaviour in minimal-invasive and robotic surgery.
Review 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Motor learning with force feedback instruments among laparoscopic surgeons and residents.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- e-Learning, Distance Education, and Virtual and Augmented Reality in Orthopedic Training: European Cross-Sectional Survey of Trainee Acceptance Guided by the Technology Acceptance Model and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Fluorescence-Guided Surgery of Rhabdomyosarcoma Using a B7-H3 Targeted Antibody-Fluorophore Conjugate.Molecular pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- A case of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for atypical internal iliac vein inflow: a case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
- Enhancing pediatric robotic pyeloplasty with a no-touch urothelium approach: a case series.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Role of haptic feedback technologies and novel engineering developments for surgical training and robot-assisted surgery.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Minimal-invasive surgery (MIS) and robotic surgery (RS) offer multiple advantages over open surgery (Vajsbaher et al. in Cogn Syst Res 64:08, 2020). However, the lack of haptic feedback is still a limitation. Surgeons learn to adapt to this lack of haptic feedback using visual cues to make judgements about tissue deformation. Experienced robotic surgeons use the visual interpretation of tissue as a surrogate for tactile feedback. The aim of this review is to identify the visual cues that are consciously or unconsciously used by expert surgeons to manipulate soft tissue safely during Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) and Robotic Surgery (RS). We have conducted a comprehensive literature review with papers on visual cue identification and their application in education, as well as skill assessment and surgeon performance measurement with respect to visual feedback. To visualise our results, we provide an overview of the state-of-the-art in the form of a matrix across identified research features, where papers are clustered and grouped in a comparative way. The clustering of the papers showed explicitly that state-of-the-art research does not in particular study the direct effects of visual cues in relation to the manipulation of the tissue and training for that purpose, but is more concentrated on tissue identification. We identified a gap in the literature about the use of visual cues for educational design solutions, that aid the training of soft-tissue manipulation in MIS and in RS. There appears to be a need RS education to make visual cue identification more accessible and set it in the context of manipulation tasks.
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.