ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Patient-specific role-aware port planning for a bedside-distributed multi-arm surgical robot: simulation and phantom validation.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Preoperative port placement for multi-arm surgical robots must accommodate patient-dependent abdominal geometry, robot-specific remote-center-of-motion (RCM) constraints, and heterogeneous task requirements of instrument and endoscope arms. This study develops and physically evaluates a patient-specific, role-aware port-planning framework for a four-arm bedside-distributed surgical robot. Abdominal dimensions are extracted from three abdominal computed tomography (CT) volumes, and a case-specific planned lesion center is defined in each volume. These data are combined with literature-reported insufflation increments to construct case-specific planning surfaces. Full-surface candidates are restricted by arm-role eligibility and RCM positioning feasibility before task-level evaluation. Instrument ports preserve lesion-surface coverage and manipulability before secondary entropy-based ranking, whereas the endoscope branch prioritizes maximum visibility and uses kinematic criteria only for tied visibility. Across the three CT-derived cases, selected left-instrument ports increased sampled lesion-surface coverage from 70.2-80.6% to 100%, selected right-instrument ports increased normalized manipulability from 0.444-0.460 to 0.683-0.748, and endoscope visibility increased by 7.8-19.1 mm. Locked-cache ablation showed that removing instrument priority retention changed all six selections and reduced raw manipulability by 20.3-43.3%, whereas replacing entropy-derived weights after priority preservation produced smaller changes. Matched phantom experiments showed higher instrument manipulability in all six selected-versus-reference comparisons and higher endoscope visibility in all three. Within this three-case proof-of-concept cholecystectomy evaluation, these results support integrating patient-specific access geometry, robot feasibility, and explicit arm-role priorities in preoperative port planning while separating task-critical preservation from secondary ranking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42911452What 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.