ArticleJPRAS open2024
Robot-Assisted Microsurgery-what does the learning curve look like?
Article in JPRAS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Surgical outcomes in pelvic reconstruction using robot-assisted rectus abdominis muscle flaps: a systematic review.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical application and developmental direction of free flaps in plastic and reconstructive surgery procedures: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Global research trends in robotic applications in plastic surgery: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Mapping the global research landscape and knowledge structure of robotic-assisted dental, oral and maxillofacial surgery: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Bridging the Gap between Microsurgery and Supermicrosurgery: A Rat Study for 0.3 mm Vascular Anastomosis Comparing Robotic-assisted vs. Conventional Approach.Journal of reconstructive microsurgery · 2026Article
- Facial Nerve Repair Using a Microsurgical Robot System: A Preclinical Study Using a Rat Model.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Supermicrosurgery in Reconstructive Surgery: A Narrative Review.Archives of plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Advancements in robotic assisted microsurgery: Exploring the MUSA robot in reconstructive microsurgical and supermicrosurgical procedures.JPRAS open · 2026Review
- Robot-Assisted Surgical Technology in Plastic Surgery: Evolution, Clinical Applications, and Future Perspectives.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Review
- Can robotic assistance mitigate the negative impact of sleep deprivation on surgical performance in microsurgical tasks?JPRAS open · 2025Article
- Perception and Reality of Robotic Microsurgery: A Cross-sectional Comparative User and Nonuser Survey Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Major Robotic Systems in Microanastomosis Procedures: A Systematic Review of Current Capabilities and Future Potential.Brain sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The introduction of robotic assistance in surgical practice has led to advancements such as the MUSA-2 robotic system that was designed for microsurgical procedures. Advantages of this system include tremor filtration and motion scaling. Initial studies showed promising results in skill acquisition for robot-assisted microsurgery. This study evaluated the learning curve for microsurgical anastomosis with and without robotic assistance among surgeons of varying experience levels. Methods: Fifteen surgeons were divided into 3 groups (novice, intermediate, and expert) based on their microsurgical experience. They performed 10 anastomoses by hand and 10 with robotic assistance on synthetic polyvinyl alcohol vessels (diameter of 2 mm) in a laboratory setting. Participants were timed and mistakes such as backwall and leakage were assessed and recorded. Demographic information was collected. Results: Statistical differences were found in manual anastomosis times between the intermediate and novice groups compared to the experts (p < 0.01). However, no statistical difference was found in the mean time between groups for the robot-assisted anastomoses. Conclusion: This study indicated similarities in the learning curves for robot-assisted anastomosis among surgeons with varied experience levels. Experts excelled technically in manual anastomoses, but robot-assistance enabled novice and intermediate surgeons to perform comparably to the experts. Robotic assistance may aid more novice learners in performing microsurgical anastomosis safely at earlier points in their education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.