Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39015714›Full record

ReviewGland surgery2024

Surgical treatments of lymphedema-a literature review on robot-assisted lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA).

Olof Engström, Maria Mani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gland surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Lymphovenous Bypass: Past, Present, and Future.Archives of plastic surgery · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. [Research progress of lymphaticovenous anastomosis in treatment of secondary lymphedema].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

2 authors.

Olof EngströmDepartment of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7663-6054
Maria ManiDepartment of Plastic and Maxillofacial Surgery, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Lymphedema is a common issue after surgery and oncologic treatment, affecting millions of people worldwide. A better understanding of the condition has provided an increasing possibility of a tailormade treatment plan, and with improvement in surgical technique, we now have several surgical treatments to offer, including the lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA). Considering the size of lymph vessels used for LVA, sometimes as small as 0.3 mm, there is a need for improvement of the technical aspects of the procedures. This paper explores the potential of robotic assistance in LVA surgery as an innovative approach to overcome the limitations of human dexterity. Methods: A literature review was performed on 2023-12-22 using PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases to identify all previous publications on robotic LVA surgery, resulting in a total of 65 publications. Original publications in English were considered and after selection, a total of 5 publications were included in the review. Key Content and Findings: Two surgical systems used in clinical practice were identified, the MUSA (Microsure) and the Symani Surgical System (Medical Microinstruments). Common topics for discussion include the increased precision the robot assistance provides, clinical outcomes, ergonomics, and the learning curve for aspiring robot surgeons. Anastomosis times were generally found to be longer initially, but several authors note that there is a steep learning curve with rapidly decreasing times with an increasing number of procedures. Overall clinical outcomes were comparable to those using manual anastomosis. Conclusions: The use of robotics in LVA surgery, has shown promising results through clinical studies. Robotic assistance can help augment the technical capacity of a surgeon through motion scaling and tremor filtration, facilitating the most delicate steps of the LVA. The learning curve is steep, and the technique can hopefully make microsurgical reconstructions available to a broader number of patients. Further development can include haptic feedback, structured training programs, and cost optimization through dissemination of the technology.

Indexed as

Lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA)robotic LVArobotic microsurgery

Identifiers

PMID39015714
PMCPMC11247599

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.