SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Do robotic needle systems improve precision and efficiency? Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and preclinical studies.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Percutaneous needle placement is ubiquitous across specialties, yet accuracy remains constrained by needle-tissue interactions and target localization, motivating interest in robotic assistance. However, clinical benefit has yet to be systematically pooled. Following PRISMA guidelines with prospective registration (PROSPERO-CRD420251052285), PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus were systematically searched through July 22nd, 2026. Comparative studies of robotic, semi-robotic or co-manipulated needle systems versus manual technique were eligible and analyzed as separate streams: clinical (patients) and preclinical (animal, cadaveric, benchtop). Outcomes included procedure time, needle accuracy, success rate, and complication rate. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using standardized mean differences (SMD) and odds ratios (OR) with pre-specified subgroup analyses. Forty studies were included, 14 clinical (834 patients) and 26 preclinical. Clinically, procedure time (SMD - 0.40; 95% CI -1.15 to 0.36; P = 0.30), procedural success (OR 0.69; 0.17 to 2.77; P = 0.60) and complications were not statistically significant (OR 0.73; 0.46 to 1.16; P = 0.18), while needle accuracy favored robotic systems (SMD - 0.71; -1.06 to -0.36; P < 0.0001). Preclinically, procedure time was not significant (SMD 0.63; -0.14 to 1.41), while needle accuracy (SMD - 1.09; -1.67 to -0.51) and technical success (OR 2.76; 1.25 to 6.12) favored robotic systems. Certainty was low for clinical accuracy and complications, very low for procedure time and success. Robotic needle systems may modestly improve needle placement accuracy, without demonstrated effect on procedure time, procedural success or complications. Larger preclinical effects establish technical validity rather than a clinical indication. Further randomized trials are needed to confirm real-world benefit of robotic assistance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42599611What 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.