Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38689940›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024

Preclinical Performance of the Combined Application of Two Robotic Systems in Microsurgery: A Two-center Study.

Kai J Wessel, Viola A Stögner, Catherine T Yu, Bohdan Pomahac, Tobias Hirsch, Haripriya S Ayyala, Maximilian Kueckelhaus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The first total robotic-assisted lymphovenous anastomosis: prospects for innovation and future development.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors.

Kai J WesselFrom the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute of Musculoskeletal Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Viola A StögnerDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yale New Haven Hospital, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.
Catherine T YuDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yale New Haven Hospital, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.
Bohdan PomahacDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yale New Haven Hospital, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.
Tobias HirschFrom the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute of Musculoskeletal Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Haripriya S AyyalaDepartment of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Yale New Haven Hospital, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.
Maximilian KueckelhausFrom the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Institute of Musculoskeletal Medicine, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Recent advancements in the development of robotic devices increasingly draw the attention toward the concept of robotic microsurgery, as several systems tailored to open microsurgery are being introduced. This study describes the combined application of a novel microsurgical robot, the Symani, with a novel robotic microscope, the RoboticScope, for the performance of microvascular anastomoses in a two-center preclinical trial. Methods: Six novices, residents, and experienced microsurgeons (n = 18) performed five anastomoses on 1.0-mm-diameter silicone vessels with a conventional versus combined robotic approach, resulting in 180 anastomoses. Microsurgical performance was evaluated, analyzing surgical time, subjective satisfaction with the anastomosis and robotic setup, anastomosis quality using the anastomosis lapse index score, microsurgical skills using the Structured Assessment of Microsurgery Skills score, and surgical ergonomics using the Rapid Entire Body Assessment score. Results: All participants significantly improved their performance during the trial and quickly adapted to the novel systems. Surgical time significantly decreased, whereas satisfaction with the anastomosis and setup improved over time. The use of robotic systems was associated with fewer microsurgical errors and enhanced anastomosis quality. Especially novices demonstrated accelerated skill acquisition upon robotic assistance compared with conventional microsurgery. Moreover, upper extremity positioning was significantly improved. Overall, the robotic approach was subjectively preferred by participants. Conclusions: The concept of robotic microsurgery holds great potential to improve precision and ergonomics in microsurgery. This two-center trial provides promising evidence for a steep learning curve upon introduction of robotic microsurgery systems, suggesting further pursuit of their clinical integration.

Identifiers

PMID38689940
PMCPMC11057809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.