ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Quantitative analysis of da Vinci 5 force feedback technology in robotic rectal surgery: a preliminary pilot study.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical performance of da Vinci 5 versus Xi for robotic anatomic lung resection: a propensity-weighted analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Force sensing and haptic feedback in robotic surgery: a bibliometric and knowledge-mapping analysis of technological evolution and translational trajectories.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe da Vinci 5 (DV5) introduces force feedback (FFb) technology to robotic surgery, aiming to enhance safety through haptic sensation. However, its quantitative impact on specific tissue manipulations in rectal cancer surgery remains unclear. This study evaluated the clinical significance of FFb by analyzing force metrics across different instrument roles.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 13 consecutive robotic rectal cancer resections performed by a single expert surgeon. Force data were extracted from system logs for the Cadiere Forceps (static retraction) and Fenestrated Bipolar Forceps (dynamic retraction). Comparisons were made between three settings: Off (N = 3), Low (N = 11), and Medium (N = 5). For "Low" and "Medium" settings, cases overlapped as settings were adjusted intraoperatively. Cumulative force usage time was calculated for each setting. Statistical significance was assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
resultsA total of 91,000 + seconds for Cadiere and 68,000 + seconds for Fenestrated Bipolar forceps were analyzed. For the Cadiere Forceps (static retraction), the mean force was significantly reduced as FFb sensitivity increased (Off: 3.07 N, Low: 2.58 N, Medium: 2.03 N; P = 0.039). For the Fenestrated Bipolar Forceps (dynamic retraction), while the mean force showed no significant difference, the median maximum (peak) force was significantly suppressed with higher FFb settings (Off: 36.19 N, Low: 18.82 N, Medium: 10.06 N; P = 0.033). No intraoperative complications related to tissue trauma occurred.
conclusionsFFb technology in the DV5 effectively modulates surgical force based on the functional role of the instrument. It significantly reduces sustained stress during static retraction and serves as a "safety brake" to cap peak forces during dynamic maneuvers, potentially enhancing the safety of robotic rectal surgery.
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.