Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39997120›Full record

ReviewBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Use of Robotic Surgery in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Narrative Review.

Jennifer Novo, Ishith Seth, Yi Mon, Akshay Soni, Olivia Elkington, Gianluca Marcaccini, Warren M Rozen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

7 authors.

Jennifer NovoFaculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Notre Dame, Sydney, NSW 2008, Australia.ORCID 0009-0005-3919-904X
Ishith SethDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Peninsula Health, Melbourne, VIC 3199, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5444-8925
Yi MonDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Peninsula Health, Melbourne, VIC 3199, Australia.ORCID 0009-0001-7002-3043
Akshay SoniDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Peninsula Health, Melbourne, VIC 3199, Australia.
Olivia ElkingtonDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Peninsula Health, Melbourne, VIC 3199, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0483-833X
Gianluca MarcacciniDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Peninsula Health, Melbourne, VIC 3199, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8621-8216
Warren M RozenDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Peninsula Health, Melbourne, VIC 3199, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4092-182X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

biomimeticsplastic surgeryreconstructive surgeryrobotic surgerysurgical innovations

Identifiers

PMID39997120
PMCPMC11852506

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.