ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Motor learning with force feedback instruments among laparoscopic surgeons and residents.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) enhances precision and ergonomics but lacks haptic feedback, limiting surgeons' ability to regulate force and develop efficient sensorimotor control. This study evaluated whether force feedback improves motor learning underlying robotic control among robotically naïve surgeons. Twenty-eight robot-naïve participants (14 residents, 14 laparoscopic surgeons) completed four simulated surgical tasks with ex-vivo porcine models on the da Vinci 5 system. Participants were assigned to Force Feedback (FFB) or non-Force Feedback (NOF) groups and completed repeated trials. Outcomes included applied force, technical performance, system control, cognitive workload, gaze, and operational time. FFB significantly reduced applied force across tasks over time by 24% (2.6 N vs. 3.4 N, p = .002) with greater reductions during force-sensitive tasks and among experienced surgeons. Participants using FFB demonstrated greater improvements in robotic control (GEARS; p = .037) with significant gains over time (p < .001), whereas NOF showed minimal change. Residents with NOF exhibited higher clutch frequency compared to FFB (p = .001), indicating less efficient system control over time. FFB reduced cognitive load based on smaller pupil diameter (3.7 mm vs. 4.1 mm, p = .021). Task efficiency improved with FFB (- 130 s, p = .030) without evidence of a speed-accuracy tradeoff. Gaze analyses indicated that brief fixation on force feedback displays was associated with lower applied force (p = .001). Findings suggest that Force Feedback instruments accelerate early skill acquisition as part of the learning curve associated with robotic control among surgeons with no prior robotic experience. Further research is needed to determine whether, how, and why the behavioral advantages observed with FFB translate to meaningful improvements in surgical performance and patient outcomes.
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.