Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42162454›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026

Intraoperative surgical needle loss in robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and practical troubleshooting framework.

Nianli Chen, Lujun Zhu, Guiming Hu, Yang Fang, Wenxuan Wang, Landie Cai, Lichang Tang, Jinwei Liu

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 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

8 authors.

Nianli ChenDepartment of Urology, The Zhuhai Hospital of Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, No. 53 Jingle Road, Xiangzhou District, Zhuhai, Guangdong, China.
Lujun ZhuDepartment of Urology, The Zhuhai Hospital of Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, No. 53 Jingle Road, Xiangzhou District, Zhuhai, Guangdong, China.
Guiming HuDepartment of Urology, The Zhuhai Hospital of Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, No. 53 Jingle Road, Xiangzhou District, Zhuhai, Guangdong, China.
Yang FangDepartment of Urology, The Zhuhai Hospital of Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, No. 53 Jingle Road, Xiangzhou District, Zhuhai, Guangdong, China.
Wenxuan WangDepartment of Urology, The Zhuhai Hospital of Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, No. 53 Jingle Road, Xiangzhou District, Zhuhai, Guangdong, China.
Landie CaiDepartment of Urology, The Zhuhai Hospital of Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, No. 53 Jingle Road, Xiangzhou District, Zhuhai, Guangdong, China.
Lichang TangDepartment of Urology, The Zhuhai Hospital of Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, No. 53 Jingle Road, Xiangzhou District, Zhuhai, Guangdong, China.
Jinwei LiuDepartment of Urology, The Zhuhai Hospital of Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, No. 53 Jingle Road, Xiangzhou District, Zhuhai, Guangdong, China. 105017522@qq.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intraoperative loss of a surgical needle during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is uncommon but clinically important. In robotic-assisted surgery (RAS), altered sensory conditions and evolving trocar designs may influence both needle-loss mechanisms and retrieval strategy. We systematically reviewed the literature and developed a practical troubleshooting framework. PubMed, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang were searched from inception to January 2026 in accordance with PRISMA 2020. Studies reporting intraoperative needle loss during abdominal or pelvic MIS or RAS were included. Because of substantial heterogeneity, findings were synthesized narratively. Thirty-three studies were included, comprising 27 original studies and 6 narrative reviews. Quantitative outcome aggregation was restricted to clinical patient-level studies, yielding 37 extractable lost-needle events: 22 during RAS and 15 during conventional laparoscopy. Minimally invasive retrieval was successful in 35/37 cases, whereas incision extension or open conversion was required in 2/37. Recurrent practical risk scenarios included trocar-pathway entrapment, including the hypothesized "Trocar Trap," and possible risk amplification related to absent haptic feedback in RAS. Evidence supporting adjunctive localization tools, including fluoroscopy and magnetic assistance, remained limited and largely non-comparative. Needle loss in contemporary MIS and RAS should be regarded as a workflow-sensitive patient safety event supported mainly by low-level evidence. The most relevant contemporary implications concern robotic workflow, port-pathway inspection, disciplined handoff, and selective use of adjunctive retrieval tools within a stepwise troubleshooting framework. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD420261294460).

Indexed as

LaparoscopyNeedlesRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresSurgical InstrumentsForeign body retrievalLaparoscopic surgeryLost needlePatient safetyRobotic surgeryTrocar entrapment

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.