ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Failure modes in soft-tissue surgical robots: an adjudicated FDA recall cohort, 2005-2026.
Article 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
FDA recall records document corrections and removals; however, product naming, administrative root-cause descriptors, and the functional mechanisms underlying failure are not interchangeable. Accordingly, the affected assets, functional loci, failure modes, and requested actions were characterized in recalls involving soft-tissue surgical robotic systems. A retrospective cohort was constructed from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Medical Device Recall Database and openFDA through 17 July 2026. Eligible product records were deduplicated by FDA product-record identifier and grouped by recall-event identifier. Every event underwent full-text narrative adjudication on two separate axes: the asset explicitly listed in the recalled product and the functional locus implicated by the product, recall-reason, and corrective-action text. A prespecified evidence hierarchy assigned one of eight primary failure modes; verbatim FDA root-cause descriptors were retained separately. Analyses were descriptive. Of 281 candidate product records, 274 were eligible and represented 120 unique recall events. Listed assets were instruments/accessories in 56 events (46.7%), core systems in 52 (43.3%), labeling/instructions for use in eight (6.7%), and multiple layers in four (3.3%). Adjudicated functional loci were core system (50; 41.7%), instrument/accessory (44; 36.7%), labeling/operational (16; 13.3%), and cross-layer interface (10; 8.3%). Primary failure modes were mechanical/material integrity (48; 40.0%), labeling/IFU/regulatory (16; 13.3%), software/control logic (15; 12.5%), electrical/electronic/power (13; 10.8%), process/use/maintenance (12; 10.0%), sterility/packaging (nine; 7.5%), indeterminate/mixed (six; 5.0%), and cybersecurity configuration (one; 0.8%). The Versius Secure Boot event was the sole recall with an explicit cybersecurity mechanism. The median initiation-to-posting interval was 33 days (interquartile range 22-111; n = 91). Surgical-robot recalls span mechanical, electrical, software, informational, and security-control failures. Separating the recalled asset from the functional failure locus, and both from the FDA root-cause descriptor, prevents an error message or administrative software label from being treated as proof of a software defect. These US regulatory data describe corrective actions, not clinical incidence or comparative platform safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42618680What 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.