Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38916880›Full record

SynthesisTranslational vision science & technology2024

Robot-Assisted Eye Surgery: A Systematic Review of Effectiveness, Safety, and Practicality in Clinical Settings.

Arun J Thirunavukarasu, Monica L Hu, William P Foster, Kanmin Xue, Jasmina Cehajic-Kapetanovic, Robert E MacLaren

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Translational vision science & technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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
–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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

6 authors.

Arun J ThirunavukarasuNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Monica L HuNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
William P FosterUniversity of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Kanmin XueNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jasmina Cehajic-KapetanovicNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Robert E MacLarenNuffield Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/V029762/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Surgical innovation in ophthalmology is impeded by the physiological limits of human motion, and robotic assistance may facilitate an expansion of the surgical repertoire. We conducted a systematic review to identify ophthalmic procedures in which robotic systems have been trialled, evaluate their performance, and explore future directions for research and development of robotic techniques. Methods: The Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Screening adhered to five criteria: (1) English language; (2) primary research article; (3) human patients; (4) ophthalmological surgery; and (5) robot-assisted surgery. Quality assessment was conducted with Joanna Briggs Institute Tools for Critical Appraisal. The study protocol was registered prospectively (PROSPERO ID CRD42023449793). Results: Twelve studies were included. In comparative studies, there was no difference in the occurrence of ocular harms in robot-assisted procedures and conventional surgery. However, robotic assistance did not demonstrate consistent benefits over manual surgery in terms of effectiveness or practicality, likely reflecting the learning curve associated with these systems. Single studies indicated the potential of robotic assistance to improve the consistency of subretinal drug infusion and efficiency of instrument manipulation in vitreoretinal surgery. Conclusions: Proof-of-concept studies have demonstrated the potential of robotic assistance to facilitate procedures otherwise infeasible or impractical, and may broaden access to surgery. However, robot-assisted surgery has not yet demonstrated any significant benefits over standard surgical practice. Improving the speed and reducing perioperative requirements of robot-assisted surgery are particular priorities for research and innovation to improve the practicality of these novel techniques. Translational Relevance: This systematic review summarizes the potential and limitations of robotic systems for assisting eye surgery and outlines what is required for these systems to benefit patients and surgeons.

Indexed as

Ophthalmologic Surgical ProceduresRobotic Surgical ProceduresEye DiseasesHumans

Identifiers

PMID38916880
PMCPMC11210629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.