ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Flexible suction-coagulation probe restores dexterity in robot-assisted surgery: bench-to-bedside evaluation.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveRigid suction-coagulation probes constrain the wrist-like articulation that is central to robotic surgery. We therefore designed a 5-mm single-use flexible suction ball coagulator (flex-SBC) with a modified core design to restore dexterity and assessed its mechanical performance and early clinical feasibility, including the effect of the common robotic gripping strategies on suction flow.
methodsPreclinical. The new 7 × 7 core embedded in silicone was compared with the conventional 1 × 7 core design. Shaft pliability was quantified by sagging displacement and rebound force testing. Suction flow at - 20, - 30, and - 40 kPa was measured, and the impact of grip location (electrode base vs silicone shaft) and forceps type (fenestrated or Maryland bipolar) was analyzed statistically. CLINICAL: The flex-SBC was used in 12 consecutive robotic gastrectomies with prospective collection of device performance, adverse events, and surgeon rating on seven-domain via three-point Likert scale.
resultsPreclinical. Adopting the 7 × 7 increased mean sagging displacement from 15.6 ± 1.8 to 39.3 ± 3.2 mm (p < 0.001) and reduced rebound force from 0.288 ± 0.014 to 0.059 ± 0.004 N (p < 0.001). Mean flow rates were 6.76 ± 0.88, 8.87 ± 0.43, and 10.58 ± 0.40 mL/sec at - 20, - 30, and - 40 kPa, respectively-approximately half those of a rigid probe (all p < 0.001) but still exceeding published thresholds for effective evacuation. Gripping the silicone shaft, especially with Maryland forceps, sharply reduced flow (60% reduction; p < 0.0011). CLINICAL: All operations were completed without device-related malfunctions, injuries, or conversions. Of 84 survey ratings, connection setup, suction efficiency, tissue safety, and overall satisfaction were "satisfactory" in 100%; maneuverability was "satisfactory" in 65% and "average" in 35%. No "unsatisfactory" scores were recorded.
conclusionsThe flex-SBC bends where the robot bends, enabling safe, practical use across robot-assisted upper-GI surgery. Grip technique influences device performance, providing important implications training. Larger comparative trials should clarify whether these ergonomic gains translate into shorter operating times and improved oncologic precision.
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.