ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Are the "visual haptics" conferred via robotics non-inferior to actual haptics?
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.
- Feasibility of robotic-assisted right colectomy using the "squeezing approach".Surgery today · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCritics often cite the lack of tactile feel as a major drawback of robotic surgery. Although robotic surgeons are believed to develop a sense of "visual haptics" through personal experience combined with the enhanced 3D vision, this phenomenon has not been formally scrutinized. Therefore, our objective was to determine whether surgeons' discernment of objects' physical properties using robotic technology was non-inferior to discernment via surgeons' hands.
methodsThis was a non-randomized parallel group study using an inanimate model consisting of four identical balloons fixed to posterboard and containing substances meant to simulate physical properties encountered in surgery-namely air, water, petroleum jelly, or a firm substance. Two groups of board-certified surgeons discerned contents of each balloon by feeling with their hands or by manipulating them using robotic instruments.
resultsUsing the Farrington-Manning test of binary non-inferiority, we expected 100% correct balloon discernment by hands-on surgeons and prospectively set 80% correct discernment by robotic surgeons as our definition of non-inferiority. A total of 76 board-certified surgeons made up our study group. There were 57 'hands-on surgeons' in Group A and 19 robotic surgeons in Group B. The mean number of years in practice, mean age, and proportion of females to males between Group A and Group B were similar (p values 0.17, 0.16, and 0.69, respectively). As expected, 100% of Group A discerned all four balloons correctly. Of the 19 robotic surgeons, one made two discernment errors (i.e., mixed up water and petroleum jelly-filled balloons). Therefore, the actual risk difference between groups was 2.6% which met our definition of non-inferiority (p = < 0.0001).
conclusionsObject discernment via "visual haptics" provided by the robotic surgery system was non-inferior to actual haptic discernment by 'hands-on surgeons.'
Indexed as
Identifiers
41514127What 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.