Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40999105›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025

Force in robotic thoracic surgery -a one year analysis of DaVinci 5 force feedback.

Peter J Kneuertz, Robert Mostellar, Robert E Merritt, Elliot L Servais, Brian Mitzman, Nestor R Villamizar, Luis F Tapias, John F Lazar, Desmond M D'Souza, Daniel S Oh and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Safety of Continuous Force Feedback in Robotic Hysterectomy and Myomectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Peter J KneuertzDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, 410 W 10Th Ave, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA. Peter.Kneuertz@osumc.edu.
Robert MostellarIntuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA.
Robert E MerrittDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, 410 W 10Th Ave, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
Elliot L ServaisDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA.
Brian MitzmanDepartment of Surgery, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Nestor R VillamizarThe DeWitt Daughtry Family Department of Surgery, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Luis F TapiasDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
John F LazarDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Ascension Saint Thomas Hospital, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Desmond M D'SouzaDivision of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, 410 W 10Th Ave, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
Daniel S OhIntuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA.
Gretchen P JacksonIntuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lack of tactile sensation has been a limitation of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS). The da Vinci 5 System (launched in 2024) integrates force feedback (FFB), a technology that measures instrument-tip forces and relays them to console hand controllers. This study characterizes forces applied during RATS and evaluates the impact of FFB. Da Vinci 5 system data for all RATS procedures using FFB instruments performed in the US between March 29, 2024 and April 30, 2025 were reviewed. Common thoracic surgeries were analyzed, including lung resections, mediastinal, esophageal, and diaphragmatic procedures. Mean instrument-tip forces (Newtons, N) were compared by procedure and instrument type. Forces and time spent above > 6.5 N were compared across FFB settings. Data from 444 procedures by 73 unique surgeons were analyzed. Median forces during lung resections (1.45 N anatomic resection, 1.42 N wedge) were significantly lower compared to mediastinal procedures (1.61 N), esophageal (1.74 N), and diaphragm surgery (1.59 N) (p < 0.001). Higher forces were measured with the use of retraction (Cadiere or Fenestrated Bipolar) than dissecting (Maryland) instruments (p < 0.001). Median forces decreased progressively with higher FFB settings (off, 1.79 N vs. low, 1.67 N vs. medium, 1.45 N vs. high, 1.32 N, p < 0.001). Proportion of duration at force > 6.5 N similarly declined with increased FFB setting (p < 0.001). FFB technology is associated with reduced average and peak instrument forces during RATS, particularly at medium and high settings. Retraction instruments experienced the highest forces. Further research is needed to define optimal force thresholds and clinical impact.

Indexed as

Robotic Surgical ProceduresThoracic Surgical ProceduresAnimalsDiaphragmFeedbackHumansRatsDa VinciHaptic feedbackInstrument forcesRobotic surgeryThoracic surgery

Identifiers

PMID40999105
PMCPMC12464090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.