ReviewBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Use of Robotic Surgery in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Narrative Review.
Review in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotics in facial plastic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the latest trends and innovations.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating the Clinical Utility of Robotic Systems in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical application and developmental direction of free flaps in plastic and reconstructive surgery procedures: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Reconstructing Aesthetics: Aesthetic Surgery Journal and Aesthetic Breast Reconstruction.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2026Article
- Global research trends in robotic applications in plastic surgery: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Minimally Invasive Robotic Endoscopic Lipoabdominoplasty for Rectus Diastasis: A Clinical and Demographic Case Series.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Transhumeral Amputation with Biceps Tenodesis Sling for Flail Shoulder After Irreversible Brachial Plexus Injury in the Setting of Bionic Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Integrative Migraine Therapy: From Current Concepts to Future Directions-A Plastic Surgeon's Perspective.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Exploring the Use of Robotics in Reconstructive and Plastic Surgery: A Comprehensive Perspective.Cureus · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesRobotic systems offer enhanced precision, dexterity, and visualization, which are essential in addressing the complex nature of plastic surgery procedures. Despite widespread adoption in other surgical specialties, such as urology and gynecology, their application in plastic surgery remains underexplored. This review examines the use of robotic systems in plastic and reconstructive surgery with a focus on clinical outcomes.
methodsA literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Search terms included ("robotic surgery" OR "surgical robots") AND ("plastic surgery" OR "reconstructive surgery"). Studies on clinical outcomes and biomimetic innovations published between 1980 and 2024 were included, while non-English, cadaver-based, and animal studies were excluded. Data were systematically extracted using Covidence and analyzed.
resultsTwenty-nine studies were identified that evaluated the clinical outcomes of robotics in areas including breast reconstruction, microsurgery, and craniofacial procedures. Robotic systems like the Da Vinci and Symani platforms offer motion scaling, tremor elimination, and enhanced depth perception. In nipple-sparing mastectomies, they reduced skin necrosis rates from 8% to 2%, while in DIEP flap reconstruction, they enabled smaller fascial incisions (2.67 ± 1.13 cm vs. 8.14 ± 1.69 cm) and faster recovery with fewer complications. In microsurgery, they achieved 100% patency for vessels under 0.3 mm and a 25.2% limb volume reduction in lymphedema patients in 3 months.
conclusionsRobotic systems show significant promise, particularly in procedures such as nipple-sparing mastectomies, and have the potential to overcome challenges including surgeon fatigue. However, challenges such as longer operating times, high costs, and limited haptic feedback remain barriers to their adoption.
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.