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.
GolahmadiAK, KhanDZ, MylonasGP, et al.Tool-tissue forces in surgery: A systematic review. Ann Med Surg (Lond), 2021; 65:102268; doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102268
2.
AfshariE, SarkhoshH, NajarianS. A novel tactile probe with medical and surgical applications. SR, 2017; 37(4):404–409; doi: 10.1108/SR-10-2016-0226
3.
LoftusCJ, GanesanV, TraxerO, et al.Ureteral wall injury with ureteral access sheaths: A randomized prospective trial. J Endourol, 2020; 34(9):932–936; doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0603
4.
TraxerO, ThomasA. Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Urol, 2013; 189(2):580–584; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.197
5.
TapieroS, KalerKS, JiangP, et al.Determining the safety threshold for the passage of a ureteral access sheath in clinical practice using a purpose-built force sensor. J Urol, 2021; 206(2):364–372; doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001719
6.
KlutkeJJ, BullockA, KlutkeCG. Comparison of anchors used in anti-incontinence surgery. J Urol, 1998; 52(6):979–981; doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(98)00427-0
7.
KanaboloDL, MaxwellAD, KumarYN, et al.Validation of Urostomy Parastomal herniation incisional prevention strategies. J Urol, 2024; 185:131–136; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2024.01.004
8.
PoniatowskiLH, SomaniSS, VenezianoD, et al.Characterizing and simulating needle insertion forces for percutaneous renal access. J Endourol, 2016; 30(10):1049–1055; doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0342
9.
ArenasJL, AlsyoufM, JangM, et al.Percutaneous externally assembled laparoscopic instruments: Creation of a new surgical paradigm. J Endourol, 2016; 30(4):433–440; doi: 10.1089/end.2015.0240
10.
TsujimotoY, ShimaH, MoriY, et al.Destruction of renal parenchyma at percutaneous nephrolithotripsy; experimental study. Hinyokika Kiyo, 1989; 35(7):1099–1103.
11.
TarinT, KimmS, ChungB, et al.Comparison of holding strength of suture anchors on human renal capsule. J Endourol, 2010; 24(2):293–297; doi: 10.1089/end.2009.0211
12.
LiF, TaiY, LiQ, et al.Real-time needle force modeling for VR-based renal biopsy training with respiratory motion using direct clinical data. Appl Bionics Biomech, 2019; 2019:9756842; doi: 10.1155/2019/9756842
13.
IeleA, RicciardiA, PecorellaC, et al.Optical fiber probe for prostate cancer screening: Ex vivo study. European Workshop on Optical Fibre Sensors (EWOFS 2023). SPIE: Belgium; 2023.
14.
LeeH, KimY, ShinYK, et al.Localization of abnormality using finite element modeling of prostate glands with robotic system: A preliminary study. International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob). IEEE: Rome, Italy; 2012.
15.
GessertNP, SaathoffT, AntoniS-T, MeyerD, HamannMF, JünemannK-P, OtteC, SchlaeferA. Needle tip force estimation using an OCT fiber and a fused convGRU-CNN architecture. Lect Notes Comput Sci, 2018; 11073:222–229; doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-00937-3_26
16.
IpsenS, WulffD, KuhlemannI, et al.Towards automated ultrasound imaging-robotic image acquisition in liver and prostate for long-term motion monitoring. Phys Med Biol, 2021; 66(9):1–20; doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/abf277
17.
YanK, LiL, JosephJ, et al.A real-time prostate cancer detection technique using needle insertion force and patient-specific criteria during percutaneous intervention. Med Phys, 2009; 36(7):3356–3362; doi: 10.1118/1.3148834
18.
PodderTK, ShermanJ, ClarkDP, et al.Evaluation of robotic needle insertion in conjunction with in vivo manual insertion in the operating room. International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication (ROMAN). IEEE: 2005.
19.
PodderTK, ShermanJ, FullerD, et al.In-vivo measurement of surgical needle intervention parameters: A pilot study. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, 2006; 2006:3652–3655; doi: 10.1109/iembs.2006.259917
20.
PodderT, ClarkD, ShermanJ, et al.In vivo motion and force measurement of surgical needle intervention during prostate brachytherapy. Med Phys, 2006; 33(8):2915–2922; doi: 10.1118/1.2218061
21.
PodderTK, ShermanJ, MessingEM, et al.Needle insertion force estimation model using procedure-specific and patient-specific criteria. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, 2006; 2006:555–558; doi: 10.1109/iembs.2006.259921
22.
ZhangYD, PodderTK, NgWS, et al.Semi-automated needling and seed delivery device for prostate brachytherapy. International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE: 2006.
23.
LiguoriG, AntoniolliF, TrombettaC, et al.Comparative experimental evaluation of guidewire use in urology. J Urol, 2008; 72(2):286–289; discussion 289–290; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.12.098
24.
UlvikØ, Wentzel-LarsenT. A novel method to measure the mechanical pushing and pulling forces during Ureteroscopy in a normal clinical setting. J Endourol, 2013; 27(5):625–630; doi: 10.1089/end.2012.0563
25.
PedroRN, HendlinK, WeilandD, et al.In vitro evaluation of ureteral perforation forces. J Urol, 2007; 70(3):592–594; discussion 594–595; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.04.050
26.
TefikT, ButticeS, SomaniB, et al.Impact of ureteral access sheath force of insertion on ureteral trauma: In vivo preliminary study with 7 patients. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg, 2018; 24(6):514–520; doi: 10.5505/tjtes.2018.15263
27.
KooKC, YoonJH, ParkNC, et al.The impact of preoperative α-adrenergic antagonists on ureteral access sheath insertion force and the upper limit of force required to avoid ureteral mucosal injury: A randomized controlled study. J Urol, 2018; 199(6):1622–1630; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.09.173
28.
AliSN, McCormacA, CumpanasAD, et al.Clinical determination of the natural distensibility of the human ureter: Initial study. BJU Int, 2025; 135(3):456–464; doi: 10.1111/bju.16564
29.
Safdari ALX, TradewellMB, KowalewskiTM, SweetRM. Practical, non-invasive measurement of urinary catheter insertion forces and motions. Front Biomed Devices, 2019; 1–5.
30.
WallerL, TelanderM, SullivanL. The importance of osmolality in hydrophilic urethral catheters: A crossover study. Spinal Cord, 1997; 35(4):229–233; doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3100390
31.
StensballeJ, LoomsD, NielsenPN, et al.Hydrophilic-coated catheters for intermittent Catheterisation reduce urethral micro trauma: A prospective, randomised, participant-blinded, crossover study of three different types of catheters. Eur Urol, 2005; 48(6):978–983; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.07.009
32.
WuAK, BlaschkoSD, GarciaM, et al.Safer urethral catheters: How study of catheter balloon pressure and force can guide design. BJU Int, 2012; 109(7):1110–1114; doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10510.x
33.
BruijnesE, KlopperPJ, BerkhoffWB. Simultaneous measurement of pressure profile and pull-through force in the urethra of 25 female patients. Urol Int, 1986; 41(1):26–34; doi: 10.1159/000281153
ArifMA, StylianouAP, BacharA, et al.Retropubic trocar modified with a load cell to verify contact with pubic bone. Surgery, 2022; 172(3):1024–1028; doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2022.06.011
36.
YipSK, PangMW, SahotaDS. Measurement of tension-free vaginal tape trocar insertion and exit forces. Gynecol Obstet Invest, 2006; 62(1):55–60; doi: 10.1159/000092641
37.
CulliganPJ, MiklosJR, MurphyM, et al.The tensile strength of uterosacral ligament sutures: A comparison of vaginal and laparoscopic techniques. Obstet Gynecol, 2003; 101(3):500–503; doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)03123-x
38.
SterneJAC, SavovicJ, PageMJ, et al.RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Bmj, 2019; 366:l4898; doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898
39.
UlvikØ, Wentzel-LarsenT, UlvikNM. A safety guidewire influences the pushing and pulling forces needed to move the ureteroscope in the ureter: A clinical randomized, crossover study. J Endourol, 2013; 27(7):850–855; doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0027
40.
MaoL, LiZ, WenJ, et al.Effect of bladder emptying status on the ureteral access sheath insertion resistance and following ureteral injury in RIRS: A prospective randomized controlled trial in academic hospital. World J Urol, 2023; 41(9):2535–2540; doi: 10.1007/s00345-023-04477-x
41.
LinAT, WangSJ, ChenKK, et al.In vivo tension sustained by fascial sling in pubovaginal sling surgery for female stress urinary incontinence. J Urol, 2005; 173(3):894–897; doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000153694.49749.73
42.
GaoBM, TsaiJC, CumpanasAD, et al.Development and initial evaluation of a cost-effective force sensor for Ureteroscopic application. J Endourol, 2024; 38(10):1075–1081; doi: 10.1089/end.2024.0315
43.
CarciumaruTZ, TangCM, FarsiM, et al.Systematic review of machine learning applications using nonoptical motion tracking in surgery. NPJ Digit Med, 2025; 8(1):28; doi: 10.1038/s41746-024-01412-1
