ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Sequential evaluation of a robotic dry-bone resection system using virtual model control with integral control: an exploratory benchtop study.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Virtual model control (VMC) provides compliant trajectory execution, but sustained contact loads can produce residual positional error. This study evaluated the sequential development of VMC augmented with integral control for powered dry-bone resection and assessed the effects of end-effector stabilisation, spatial calibration and operating parameters. A seven-degree-of-freedom Franka Research 3 robot was commanded using VMC with integral control and carried a 4-mm diamond-tipped arthroscopic burr through a programmed 10 × 10 mm serpentine trajectory in 20 pounds-per-cubic-foot synthetic bone. Four sequential configurations were assessed: an original handle-based mount, an anthropomorphically designed shaft-stabilising mount, robot-frame calibration and workpiece registration. Each configuration comprised three resections. Performance was graded by one non-blinded assessor using a study-specific twelve-point score across burr-tip oscillation and X-, Y- and Z-axis deviation, with lower scores indicating better performance. Radial depth of cut, engagement depth, trajectory velocity and burr angle were then screened to identify candidate operating parameters. Mean total score decreased sequentially from 11.7/12 with the original mount to 7.7/12 after shaft stabilisation, 5.7/12 after robot-frame calibration and 4.0/12 after workpiece registration. The lowest observed score was maintained at an RDOC between 0.10 and 0.25 mm, a measured depth between 1.52 and 1.89 mm, velocity between 1.5 and 2.5 mm/s and a burr angle between 30 and 45 degrees. Mechanical stabilisation and spatial calibration were associated with progressively better resection performance using VMC with integral control. This exploratory benchtop study identified candidate operating ranges for further assessment in higher-fidelity models.
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.