Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37568353›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023

The Expanding Utility of Robotic-Assisted Flap Harvest in Autologous Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

Nikita Roy, Christopher J Alessandro, Taylor J Ibelli, Arya A Akhavan, Jake M Sharaf, David Rabinovitch, Peter W Henderson, Alice Yao

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07222514 (Feasibility and Safety of Single-Port Robotic-Assisted DIEP Flap Harvest for Breast Reconstruction), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07222514 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Feasibility and Safety of Single-Port Robotic-Assisted DIEP Flap Harvest for Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Evaluation

TypeinterventionalSponsorVanderbilt University Medical CenterRan2026 to 2028Enrolled4ConditionsDIEP Flap Breast ReconstructionArmsSingle-Port Robotic System
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Innovation in reconstructive plastic surgery.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Nikita RoyDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA.
Christopher J AlessandroSUNY Downstate Medical School, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, NY 11203, USA.
Taylor J IbelliDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA.
Arya A AkhavanDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7119-9123
Jake M SharafDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA.
David RabinovitchThe American Medical Program, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.ORCID 0000-0003-4970-7747
Peter W HendersonDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA.
Alice YaoDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA.
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USSUNY Downstate Health Sciences University · USTel Aviv University · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The expansion of robotic surgery has led to developments in robotic-assisted breast reconstruction techniques. Specifically, robotic flap harvest is being evaluated to help maximize operative reliability and reduce donor site morbidity without compromising flap success. Many publications are feasibility studies or technical descriptions; few cohort analyses exist. This systematic review aims to characterize trends in robotic autologous breast reconstruction and provide a summative analysis of their results. A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science to evaluate robot use in breast reconstruction. Studies dated from 2006 to 2022 were identified and analyzed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Full-text, peer-reviewed, English-language, and human subject studies were included. Non-breast reconstruction articles, commentary, expert opinion, editor's letter, and duplicate studies were excluded. A total of 17 full-text articles were analyzed. The two robotic breast procedures identified were the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) and the latissimus dorsi (LD) flap. Results showed comparable complication rates and increased operative times compared to NSQIP data on their corresponding open techniques. Additional findings reported in studies included patient reported outcomes, incision lengths, and downward trends in operative time with consecutive procedures. The available data in the literature confirms that robotic surgery is a promising alternative to traditional open methods of breast reconstruction following mastectomy.

Indexed as

autologous breast reconstructionrobotic-assisted surgeryrobotic breast surgeryrobotic plastic surgeryrobotic surgerysurgical innovation

Identifiers

PMID37568353
PMCPMC10419897
OpenAlexW4385348978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.