Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2026
Reliability of urological telesurgery compared with local surgery: multicentre randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Safety and feasibility of robotic telesurgery in urological procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical data.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Global research trends and hotspots of robot-assisted urological telesurgery: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Global research landscape, knowledge structure, and emerging frontiers of urological robotic telesurgery: a bibliometric and knowledge-mapping analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Clinical Recommendations for Remote Robotic Assisted Surgery From the CRSA 2025 International Consensus Conference.World journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Urological telesurgery after the first randomised trial: a scoping review and public implementation visibility audit.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Feasibility and preliminary safety of urologic telesurgery using Chinese surgical systems: a single-center exploratory case series.BMC urology · 2026Article
- A Pilot Study of Telerobotic Radical Thyroidectomy for Thyroid Cancer Using a 5G Network.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Beyond multiport DaVinci®: a closer look at less commonly used robotic systems in resectional colorectal surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- A proposed ethical framework for informed consent in elective robotic telesurgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
35 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate whether the reliability of telesurgery is non-inferior to that of standard local surgery in patients undergoing urological robotic operations.
designMulticentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.
settingFive hospitals in China from December 2023 to June 2024.
participantsPatients scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy or partial nephrectomy.
interventionsPatients were randomly assigned 1:1 to undergo telesurgery or local surgery.
main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the probability of success of surgery, determined by the medical team on the basis of pre-established criteria. The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was an absolute reduction in probability of 0.1. Thirteen clinical secondary outcomes were associated with the operation and early recovery, and one secondary outcome related to the workload of the medical team. Four technical secondary outcomes for the surgical system were also explored, including network latency, display latency, frame loss during telesurgery, and system malfunction. The participants were followed up at four and six weeks postoperatively for the secondary outcomes of recovery and complications.
resultsA total of 72 participants were enrolled in the study and randomised 1:1 to the telesurgery group and the local surgery group for the intention-to-treat set. The median age of patients was 61.0 (interquartile range 57.5-68.0) years in the telesurgery group and 65.0 (56.5-70.0) years in the local surgery group. Telesurgery was not inferior to local surgery in terms of the probability of surgical success in the intention-to-treat population, accounting for clustering by surgeon (success probability difference 0.02 (95% credible interval -0.03 to 0.15) with bayesian posterior probability of 0.99 for non-inferiority). The telesurgery system was stable with a distance from 1000 km to 2800 km, a mean round trip network latency of 20.1-47.5 ms, and frame loss of 0-1.5 per telesurgery. Secondary outcomes, including operative basic data, complications, early recovery, oncological outcome, and medical team workload, did not differ substantially between the two groups.
conclusionsThe reliability of telesurgery was non-inferior to that of local robotic surgery according to the non-inferiority margin of a 0.1 reduction in success probability.
trial registrationChiCTR.org ChiCTR2300077721.
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.