ArticlePloS one2026
In vitro contact force evaluation of robotic magnetic navigation catheters; Head to head comparison of different catheters and different settings.
Article in PloS one, 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
backgroundThe Stereotaxis Robotic Magnetic Navigation (RMN) system uses an external magnetic field to navigate catheters inside the heart during arrhythmia ablation. This study compared in vitro maximal contact force (CF) achieved with different irrigated RMN ablation catheters under various conditions.
methodsAn in vitro model was created to measure CF using a high-precision goldsmith scale mounted in a dedicated frame between the permanent magnets of the Stereotaxis RMN system. Four irrigated RMN catheters (Navistar RMT, Celsius RMT, Magnoflush, MAGiC™) were evaluated at three magnetic field intensities (0.10 T, 0.08 T, 0.05 T) and under multiple settings.
resultsThe MAGiC™ catheter consistently achieved significantly higher CF across all magnetic field intensities and orientations. At 0.10 T, longitudinal median CF ranged from 13.80 g (±0.10) to 19.80 g (±0.50), approximately 36% higher than the other catheters, which ranged from 7.00 g (±0.50) to 14.50 g (±0.38). In the perpendicular orientation, MAGiC™ ranged from 5.09 g (±0.65) to 10.83 g (±0.89), about 156% higher than the others, which ranged from 1.75 g (±0.18) to 4.22 g (±0.36). Across all catheters, CF increased with higher magnetic field intensity, with greater sheath support and with longitudinal orientation.
conclusionsThe MAGiC™ catheter achieved significantly higher CF than other RMN catheters in both longitudinal and perpendicular orientations. The remaining catheters demonstrated comparable CF performance across all magnetic field intensities. Contact force increased with greater magnetic field strength and enhanced sheath support, and was consistently higher in the longitudinal compared with the perpendicular orientation.
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.