SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Intraoperative surgical needle loss in robotic-assisted and laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review and practical troubleshooting framework.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
42162454What 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.