ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2026
Clinical value of robot-assisted catheter navigation for cardiac electrophysiology ablation: current evidence and future directions.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The success of catheter ablation depends not only on identification of arrhythmia mechanisms, mapping, and energy strategy, but also on catheter accessibility and stable manipulation. Robot-assisted catheter navigation enables remote control through magnetic fields, robotic sheaths, or mechanical actuation. However, with the development of three-dimensional electroanatomic mapping, low- and zero-fluoroscopy workflows, and newer ablation technologies, the key question has shifted from technical feasibility to whether these systems can overcome practical procedural constraints in specific clinical settings. This review synthesizes the clinical evidence for different robot-assisted catheter navigation technologies. Disease-specific comparative studies and long-term outcome data are derived mainly from robotic magnetic navigation. Current evidence consistently supports reduced conventional X-ray use with robotic navigation; in selected settings involving complex anatomy, abnormal vascular pathways, or limited catheter reachability, available studies show technical feasibility and procedural support, but consistent benefits in procedural efficiency, safety, and long-term patient outcomes have not been demonstrated. Its clinical value depends mainly on whether the dominant procedural limitation lies in catheter navigation and manipulation and is jointly influenced by the compatibility and availability of supporting technologies, the comparator, and center-specific workflow; procedural improvements do not necessarily translate into long-term patient benefit. Future studies should identify patients with a clear catheter-navigation need, distinguish the effect of robotic catheter navigation itself from that of the complete treatment strategy, and further evaluate its actual value for patients, operators, and healthcare systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42821164What 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.