ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
SS-OCT-guided dual-arm master-slave robotic system for in vivo subretinal injection in porcine eyes.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and stability of a novel remote multimodal surgical platform that integrates a dual-arm robotic system with an intraoperative swept-source OCT surgical microscope system for subretinal injection in porcine eyes. Subretinal injection was performed in vivo in Bama miniature pigs (one eye per animal), with six animals assigned to robotic manipulation (RM) and six to manual manipulation (MM). Successful injection was defined as localized subretinal bleb formation confirmed by intraoperative OCT. Outcome measures included procedure time, injection time, first-attempt success rate, bleb morphology, intraoperative complications, postoperative OCT findings, needle-tip tremor amplitude, and histological changes. Subretinal injection was successful in all 12 eyes (100% success rate), with a first-attempt success rate of 5/6 in the RM group and 3/6 in the MM group. Total procedure time was longer in the RM group (901.5 vs. 489.8 s, P = 0.0093), whereas injection time did not differ significantly (median 8.00 vs. 8.50 s, P = 0.6842). Tremor amplitudes were numerically lower in the RM group but did not reach statistical significance (average: 4.48 ± 0.62 vs. 11.06 ± 3.65 μm, P = 0.087; peak: 23.19 ± 2.65 vs. 47.98 ± 18.66 μm, P = 0.146). No severe complications (extensive retinal detachment, uncontrolled bleeding, or lens injury) occurred in either group; minor localized hemorrhage showed a narrower distribution in the RM group than in the MM group. Postoperative OCT confirmed retinal reattachment in all eyes, and histology revealed only localized entry-site changes. This dual-arm robotic platform enabled successful bimanual subretinal injection in all porcine eyes, with comparable injection time, bleb morphology, and short-term tissue safety relative to manual surgery. Despite a longer total procedure time, the system showed a non-significant trend toward reduced needle-tip tremor. These results support the feasibility and preliminary safety of this platform for subretinal injection and warrant further evaluation for remote bimanual vitreoretinal microsurgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42704423What 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.