ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2026
Distal mechanisms in robotic surgical instruments: a structured review of surgical access, miniaturisation constraints and procedure-specific performance trade-offs.
Review 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The distal end of a robotic surgical instrument is where access, dexterity, tissue interaction and procedural capability converge. In flexible, endoluminal, transoral, percutaneous, vascular and neuroendoscopic surgery, the clinical value of an instrument depends not only on kinematic complexity but also on miniaturisation, usable lumen, transmission reliability, stiffness, sensing and validation maturity. This article presents a structured narrative review of distal mechanisms for robotic surgical instruments, based on a technical-clinical synthesis of studies identified through IEEE Xplore, PubMed and Web of Science. Distal architectures are organised into discrete articulated, continuous and hybrid mechanisms and are interpreted according to surgical access route, dominant task, tissue interaction requirements and procedure-specific performance trade-offs. The review shows that no single distal architecture is universally superior. Discrete mechanisms can support local orientation and load-bearing tasks; continuous mechanisms facilitate navigation through tortuous anatomy but introduce shape-estimation and transmission challenges; and hybrid architectures seek to balance access, stability, dexterity and deployment capability. Across these families, miniaturisation should be understood as functional rather than dimensional: reduced outer diameter is clinically meaningful only when force transmission, usable lumen, stiffness, sensing and workflow compatibility are preserved. The article proposes a minimum reporting core for distal robotic mechanisms, including outer diameter, usable lumen, transmission principle, distal force, stiffness definition and validation level. Future progress will depend on procedure-specific evaluation frameworks linking mechanism design with surgical task, anatomical constraints and translational readiness.
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.