MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416751417 · doi:10.1177/08927790251394738

The Science of Surgical Force: A New Field of Study in Urology

2025· article· en· W4416751417 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Zhang, Bruce Gao, Mariah C. Hernandez, Seyed Amiryaghoub M. Lavasani, Yezan F. Hadidi, Eman N. Chaudhri, Jaime Landman, Ralph V. Clayman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Simulation and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUreterUrethraProstatectomyMEDLINESystematic reviewProstate cancerProstateUrethral stricture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Precise and efficient application of force on tissue is a core competency of surgical practice, ingrained into surgeons’ hands through years of training. To date, safe force thresholds have only begun to be evaluated for urologic tissues. We introduce The Science of Surgical Force , an emerging discipline within Urology, by conducting the first comprehensive synthesis of force-related data across urologic procedures. We aim to define force thresholds that inform safe practice, enhance surgical technique, and guide future innovation. Methods: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses compliant scoping review was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Two independent reviewers screened studies evaluating surgical mechanical force applied to human GU. Data were categorized by organ, instrument, and procedure. Study quality and bias were assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. Results: Among 4988 studies identified (1974–2024), only 36 met our Urology-focused inclusion criterion; these studies involved 741 patients and 46 ex vivo tissue specimens. Force data were reported for the fascia ( n = 2), kidney ( n = 5), prostate ( n = 10), ureter ( n = 9), urethra ( n = 5), and vagina ( n = 5). Ureteral studies identified 6–8 Newtons (N) as a safety threshold. Prostate studies focused on brachytherapy and cancer localization, with needle insertion forces ranging from 2 to 9 N depending on tissue type and needle gauge. Other organs showed wide variability and limited data. Only seven studies were randomized controlled trials; the mean quality score was 6.3, indicating an overall low level of quality among the force studies. Conclusions: This is the first comprehensive review defining surgical force thresholds across urologic tissues to support integration of force-aware technologies into practice and education. Future work should focus on standardizing force application to improve outcomes, especially as force-sensing tools are developed and artificial intelligence-guided platforms become more widely available.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndourologySame topicSurgical Simulation and TrainingFrench-language works237,207