ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
Safety with the senhance™ robotic system in 3,239 patients across various surgical disciplines.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Emerging robotic platforms in gynecologic surgery: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Beyond Da Vinci: Comparative Review of Next-Generation Robotic Platforms in Urologic Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAt present, robotic surgery has found its most frequent application in gastrointestinal, gynaecological, and urological procedures, presenting a seamless integration of advanced technology. The Senhance™ Robotic System certainly contributes to this evolution, gracefully employed to enhance precision and efficacy in these surgical disciplines. However, safety data, such as conversion rates, robotic malfunctions, and adverse event rates, are still lacking on a large scale.
methodsTo shed light on this, data from nine European centres (N = 3,239) was collected prospectively as part of the TRUST registry.
resultsOur results present most data from gastrointestinal surgery (2,132 cases), followed by procedures from gynaecology (609 cases) and urology (498 cases). Overall, we found a conversion rate of 4.5% (147 cases). Robotic malfunctions were seen in 3% (96 cases) of the procedures, with console malfunctions occurring in 0.5% (16 cases), monitor or camera issues affecting 0.5% (17 cases), and other malfunctions registered in 2.1% (69 cases). The most common robotic limitations were displayed by limited motion (15.6%, 505 cases) and collisions (6.2%, 202 cases). Finally, we found a 3.9% rate of adverse events, with 127 episodes across all three disciplines. Most adverse events were judged as mild in severity (53 cases) and unrelated (101 cases) to the robotic system. Additionally, only one case was considered to be certainly related to the Senhance™ Robotic System, and just three serious adverse events occurred intraoperatively.
conclusionIn conclusion, our data demonstrates that performing gastrointestinal, gynaecological, and urological surgeries with the Senhance™ Robotic System can be safe for patients and surgeons.
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.