ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic-assisted compartmental dissection for retroperitoneal sarcoma: a feasibility study on cadavers with the da Vinci Xi system.
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) pose major technical challenges because of their size, anatomical complexity, and need for multivisceral resection. We evaluated the feasibility of a standardized robotic approach for right- and left-sided retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) compartmental resection using the da Vinci Xi system in tumour-free human cadavers. In a two-phase IDEAL-D Stage 0 cadaveric study, two sarcoma surgeons first compared four trocar configurations in two cadavers to identify optimal port templates (Phase 1). Complete six-stage compartmental resection following a standardised protocol was then performed once on each side in a third cadaver (Phase 2). The confirmatory dissection was assessed with a 5-point anatomical reach rating per predefined landmark, an adapted System Usability Scale (SUS), and a structured safety surrogate log. Phase 1 yielded a horizontal suprasymphysial port template for the right side and an oblique xiphoid-to-right-lower-quadrant template for the left. In Phase 2, all six stages were completed bilaterally; all predefined landmarks were reached (pooled median reach 5/5, range 3-5; inter-rater agreement 90%). Three-dimensional visualization and instrument articulation were rated highly, the platform scored 72.5/100 on the System Usability Scale, and no unintended major injury occurred. A robotic platform can reproduce the anatomical exposure required for the six-stage compartmental resection concept in a tumour-free cadaveric model, using side-specific port templates. Because no tumour was present, these findings address anatomical access rather than oncological resection. Investigation in tumour-bearing models is required before clinical evaluation, which must remain restricted to highly selected patients at expert centres.
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.