ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Durability of reusable instruments and hidden costs in robotic-assisted surgery: a retrospective multidisciplinary analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic and Robotic Appendectomy: Efficiency and Cost Comparison.Journal of surgery and research · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe use of robotic surgery is increasing across multiple disciplines; however, the durability of reusable robotic instruments and associated hidden costs remain underexplored. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the incidence of instrument failure in robotic surgery as well as investigate the associated factors and costs.
methodsThis retrospective analysis involved 757 reusable robotic forceps used in 1906 robotic surgeries performed between January 2022 and December 2024 at a single tertiary center. Instrument usage data, failure rates, and hidden costs, including reprocessing costs and financial losses against failed instruments, were examined. Risk factors for mechanical failure, particularly disk and cable damage, were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression.
resultsOf the 757 instruments, 598 (79.0%) completed their designated life cycles, while 148 (19.6%) failed prematurely. The overall device failure rate per operation was 7.8%. Disk and cable failures accounted for 8.2 and 5.7% of all instrument failures, respectively. Fenestrated bipolar forceps had the highest failure rate (45.9%). Financial loss due to unreimbursed instrument failure amounted to $75,950 over 3 years, corresponding to approximately $39.8 per surgery based on 1906 procedures. A multivariate analysis identified a disinfectant concentration change from 1.0 to 0.5% as a protective factor for disk failure (odds ratio: 0.38; p = 0.001).
conclusionReusable robotic instruments demonstrated variable durability, with approximately 20% failing prior to their usage limit in our cohort, contributing to substantial hidden costs. Optimization of reprocessing protocols and strategic instrument selection may help mitigate this economic burden.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41340007What 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.