ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Post-market safety signals of energy-based surgical devices: a cross-specialty disproportionality analysis of the FDA MAUDE database with robotic-platform validation and regulatory triangulation, 2015-2025.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-market safety evidence for energy-based surgical devices is fragmented. We characterized adverse-event signals in the FDA MAUDE database, validated them on a third (robotic) platform, and triangulated across regulatory and international sources. Medical Device Reports (2015-2025) under electrosurgical and ultrasonic product codes were analyzed with reporting odds ratios (RORs), stratified by specialty and procedure, with robustness checks. All reports under the robotic-system code were retrieved as a third-platform validation cohort. Signals were triangulated with FDA recalls, 510(k) clearances, the Health Canada and Australian TGA databases, exposure descriptors, and a retrospectively applied Poisson CUSUM feasibility analysis. Among 110,183 deduplicated reports (65.8% electrosurgical, 34.2% ultrasonic), electrosurgical devices showed an electrical-thermal fingerprint (burns ROR 3.84; electric shock ROR 15.34) and ultrasonic devices a mechanical-integrity fingerprint (foreign-body removal ROR 92.74), replicated directionally in Canada and Australia. The fingerprint localized to generator/monopolar components and varied by specialty and procedure. Within the robotic validation cohort, component-stratified analysis partly reproduced these signatures-robot-mounted monopolar instruments retained a burn signal, and robot-mounted ultrasonic instruments carried the highest injury-report share-while cross-platform, same-modality contrasts are reported strictly as report-composition (share-level) comparisons. Reporting artifacts (19.5% placeholder narratives; a 2025 robotic mass-reporting episode comprising 55.8% of the robotic cohort) left fingerprint RORs materially unchanged. A retrospectively applied CUSUM flagged the burn theme more than five years before the 2023-2024 Class I recalls, illustrating-without establishing prospective lead time-the potential of automated monitoring. Energy-modality failure-injury fingerprints were consistent across specialties, delivery platforms, three national databases, and regulatory actions. Automated, artifact-aware surveillance of vigilance databases is a promising complement to pre-market review and warrants prospective evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42860471What 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.