ArticleBMC biomedical engineering2025
Proof of concept of a static approach to determine mechanical tissue properties during tumor surgery.
Article in BMC biomedical engineering, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mechanical properties of tumor tissue differ from those of healthy tissue. Therefore, surgeons palpate accessible surgical sites to determine tumor boundaries prior to resection. However, palpation is not possible during minimally invasive surgery, so instrumented palpation is required instead. This study investigates the suitability of an engineering method that combines mechanical object scanning and indentation to determine Young's modulus of soft, tissue-like materials. To establish a defined reference, we tested our concept on silicone phantoms containing stiff tumor-like inclusions. We used a sensor consisting of a load cell connected to a rigid probe with a spherical indenter tip. Young's modulus was calculated by measured force, indentation depth, and indenter geometry. These results were compared with those of a palpation experiment on the same specimens, conducted with surgeons. Validation results reflect the accuracy of the method. Error in estimation of Young's modulus is: soft material 6.7%, stiff material 44.9%. Repeatability is high, with a standard deviation < 7%. By scanning a phantom and creating a stiffness image, we were able to identify the location and shape of the inclusion more clearly than experienced surgeons could using manual palpation. Looking ahead, the prospect of miniaturizing the presented technique for localizing tumor boundaries during surgery seems promising.
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.