Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42044376›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2026

Surgeons' Perceptions on the Utility of a Conceptual Novel Force Sensor at the Surgeon-Tool Interface: Formative Interview Study.

Bennet Mühlenbeck, Jeremy Opie, Carmen Salvadores Fernandez, Shireen Jaufuraully, Dawn Parris, Adrien Desjardins, Anna L David, Dimitrios Siassakos, Manish K Tiwari, Ann Blandford

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Bennet MühlenbeckUCL Interaction Centre (UCLIC), University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0007-8863-8939
Jeremy OpieUCL Interaction Centre (UCLIC), University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1529-5847
Carmen Salvadores FernandezUCL Hawkes Institute, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom, 44 0207679 ext 9575.ORCID 0000-0002-2509-1442
Shireen JaufuraullyUCL Hawkes Institute, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom, 44 0207679 ext 9575.ORCID 0000-0001-8660-7281
Dawn ParrisUCL Hawkes Institute, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom, 44 0207679 ext 9575.ORCID 0000-0003-4702-0861
Adrien DesjardinsDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1932-1811
Anna L DavidUCL Hawkes Institute, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom, 44 0207679 ext 9575.ORCID 0000-0002-0199-6140
Dimitrios SiassakosUCL Hawkes Institute, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom, 44 0207679 ext 9575.ORCID 0000-0002-1078-9856
Manish K TiwariUCL Hawkes Institute, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom, 44 0207679 ext 9575.ORCID 0000-0001-5143-6881
Ann BlandfordUCL Interaction Centre (UCLIC), University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3198-7122

Funding

Wellcome Trust 203145/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Real-time force feedback is essential in many surgical specialties. While previous research has focused on force measured at the tool-tissue interface, little work has explored the benefits, limitations, or opportunities of measuring force at the surgeon-tool interface. Objective: This study aims to explore scenarios in which surgeons from different medical specialties and experience levels could benefit from receiving feedback on the force exerted at the surgeon-tool (or surgeon-tissue) interface. Methods: Exploratory qualitative research was conducted through interviews with medical practitioners (N=15). This study explored perceptions of a conceptual novel force-sensing surgical glove that could provide real-time feedback in terms of usability, utility, value, and limitations. Opportunities and barriers to implement a sensor of this type in clinical practice were also explored. Participants had experience in anesthetics, dental surgery, plastic and dermatological surgery, general surgery, and obstetrics and gynecology, as these surgical fields all require precise feedback on exerted forces. Results: Participants identified two key areas where a force sensor could yield significant benefits: (1) it could enhance surgical training through objective skill assessment and quantifiable feedback, and (2) it could provide valuable insights into the forces applied during practice, particularly in scenarios where other sensory feedback is masked. Participants appreciated that a sensorized glove that can provide real-time force sensing at the surgeon-tool interface would allow for continued feedback irrespective of the instrument, and integrate seamlessly into their current surgical workflow. Furthermore, as surgeons in some specialisms, for example, dental or obstetrics and gynecology, perform manual tasks, having a sensorized glove would provide feedback in instances where they are physically manipulating tissue. However, participants expressed concerns about accurately defining safe force ranges due to the variability in patients' anatomical structures and the potential interference with tactile sensation. Conclusions: Surgeons from various clinical practices agreed that force sensing at the surgeon-tool interface could be valuable and provide them with optimal versatility as to when they would adopt force sensing. A sensorized glove could improve decision-making and surgical outcomes when other sources of information guiding force exertion are masked. Conversely, it could be detrimental when the organic information to guide force exertion is distorted when using the sensor. While the choice between interaction modalities is dependent on the accessibility of different senses during surgery, design suggestions as to where sensors are best placed on a sensorized glove are dependent on the instrument used or the type of manual procedure conducted.

Indexed as

Gloves, SurgicalPerceptionSurgeonsAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative Researchforce feedbackhaptics in surgerysensorized glovesurgeon-tool interfaceuser requirements

Identifiers

PMID42044376
PMCPMC13120544

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.