ArticleScientific reports2026
Feasibility and performance evaluation of a robotic steerable endoscopic submucosal dissection knife (with video).
Article in Scientific reports, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) requires high precision and dexterity and poses significant challenges for novice operators. Robotic steerable ESD knives have been developed to improve tip control and reduce the technical difficulties associated with conventional instruments. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, efficiency, and safety of a novel robotic-steerable ESD knife using simulated tissue models and to compare procedural outcomes between novice and expert endoscopists. Two experts and two novice endoscopists performed standardized ESD procedures using synthetic gastric tissue models. The experiments compared two modalities, robotic knife-assisted ESD (RESD) and conventional knife-assisted ESD (CESD). Each operator performed five procedures for each method. Performance metrics included total procedure time, submucosal dissection speed, dissection accuracy, and incidence of procedural complications. Twenty RESD and CESD procedures were analyzed. The RESD group demonstrated a significantly shorter total procedure time (30.1 ± 13.1 min) compared with CESD (42.3 ± 17.4 min; P < 0.05). Submucosal dissection speed was also significantly higher in RESD (48.3 ± 7.8 mm²/min) than in CESD (20.2 ± 7.4 mm²/min; P < 0.05). Furthermore, dissection accuracy was markedly higher with RESD than with CESD (91.1 ± 4.9% vs. 75.1 ± 14.1%, P < 0.05). The steerable robotic ESD knife facilitated a more controlled and precise submucosal dissection, particularly aiding novice endoscopists in overcoming technical challenges. These findings indicate that robotic knife-assisted ESD may enhance procedural performance, with pronounced benefits for less-experienced operators.
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.