ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2026
Medical liability in paediatric robotic surgery - a current concept and a literature review.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic-assisted surgery offers significant technical advantages in pediatric procedures but presents complex, unresolved medico-legal challenges regarding liability. We retrospectively reviewed our ten-year experience comprising 205 pediatric robotic procedures. Technical issues related to the robot were encountered in 7 cases (3.4%). These included joystick latency (3/7), coagulation/cutting pedal malfunctions (2/7), and accidental power cable disconnections causing system shutdowns (2/7). A literature review was conducted to assess the current international state of the art regarding robotic medical liability. Although the technical events at our center did not result in clinical complications, they highlighted significant potential risks. The literature shows that specific guidelines governing human, product, and algorithm-related liability are still lacking. Robotic surgery shifts the focus from an exclusively fault-based liability of the surgeon to a network-based system involving multiple stakeholders: the surgeon, the healthcare institution, and the manufacturer. Determining whether an adverse event stems from human error, algorithmic malfunction, or a combination of both remains a critical challenge. Unlike open or laparoscopic surgery where liability is primarily attributed to the operator, robotic surgery involves a complex interaction between the surgeon's console inputs and the manufacturer's technology. Consequently, from a medico-legal standpoint, responsibility for complications should be shared among the surgeon, the hospital, and the device manufacturer.
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.