Force sensing and haptic feedback in robotic surgery: a bibliometric and knowledge-mapping analysis of technological...

Force sensing and haptic feedback are increasingly important for restoring information on instrument-tissue interaction during robotic surgery, yet the development and clinical translation of this field remain incompletely characterized. This study mapped the global research landscape, intellectual structure, technological evolution, and translational trajectory of force sensing and haptic feedback in robotic surgery. Publications from January 1, 2010, through the final search date of July 30, 2026, were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and PubMed. After deduplication, metadata quality control, and eligibility assessment, 2,872 publications from 960 sources were analyzed using bibliometric performance indicators, science mapping, citation-burst detection, logistic growth modeling, and exploratory topic modeling. Annual output increased from 56 publications in 2010 to 393 in 2025, with 54.46% of the corpus published during 2020-2025. Logistic modeling placed the literature within a rapid-growth phase, although the observed output in 2025 exceeded the smoothed model trajectory. China contributed the largest number of publications, whereas the United States ranked first in country-level cumulative citations. Publications involving authors from more than one country accounted for 11.98% of the corpus, indicating comparatively limited international collaboration. The knowledge structure shifted from master-slave teleoperation and bilateral control toward miniaturized force sensing, sensorized instruments, robotic palpation, sensorless force estimation, and force-aware intelligent assistance. Exploratory topic modeling did not yield sufficiently coherent or stable themes for definitive classification. Overall, the published literature suggests a shift from component-level engineering toward integrated systems and early-stage clinical evaluation; however, these bibliometric patterns should not be interpreted as evidence of established clinical effectiveness. Future research should prioritize standardized reporting, task- and tissue-specific force thresholds, independent external validation, human-factor assessment, and prospective multicenter studies.