ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Adverse-event reporting profiles of the Intuitive SureForm robotic stapling system in the FDA MAUDE database differ by product code: a comparison of GDW- and NAY-coded reports.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prior MAUDE studies of robotic surgery have largely characterized platform-level or procedure-specific adverse-event profiles, whereas subsystem-level surveillance of robotic stapling devices remains limited. Robotic stapling systems are multi-component devices, and post-market adverse-event reports may be distributed across separate regulatory product codes for stapler instruments and reloads. We conducted a retrospective, product-code-aware database study of Intuitive Surgical SureForm-related reports in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database received from October 11, 2018, through March 31, 2026. Deduplicated reports were grouped by primary product code and reviewed using prespecified narrative labels for clinical consequences and failure modes. The cohort included 2,802 reports, with annual volume increasing from 7 reports in 2018 to 654 in 2025. Product-code profiles differed markedly: GDW-coded reports were predominantly Injury reports (1,336/1,912; 69.9%), whereas NAY-coded reports were predominantly Malfunction reports (718/883; 81.3%). Narrative labels also differed: bleeding, leak, tissue-pushout, misfire, and conversion terms were more frequent in GDW-coded reports, whereas stuck, jam, or freeze terminology was more frequent in NAY-coded reports. Staple-line issue was identified more frequently in GDW-coded reports but showed lower reproducibility in validation analyses and was therefore interpreted cautiously. Death-term screening identified device-specific false positives arising from technical use of "force expired." These findings show that product-code assignment can shape the observable safety profile of a robotic stapling subsystem and suggest hypothesis-generating surveillance priorities, including product-code-integrated queries, narrative screening, and device-specific review of recurrent report-text patterns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42474573What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.