ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Pilot Study: RoboticScope (Robotic Microscope)-assisted Primary Cleft Palate Surgery.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Transoral Robotic Cleft Palate Surgery: Communication-Related Outcomes and Feasibility.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Recommendations for Improving Ergonomics in Cleft Palate and Lip Surgery: A Scoping Review.Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conventional palatoplasty involves operating in a narrow oral cavity space with surgical loupe visualization. Today, some surgeons resort to surgical microscopes to improve visualization and obtain more precise muscle dissection. The RoboticScope is a head movement-controlled system that moves the robotic arm loaded with 3-dimensional visualization technology, allowing surgeons complete freedom to use their hands during surgery. Methods: This was a retrospective pilot analysis of 8 pediatric patients, split into 2 cohorts of 4, comparing conventional palatoplasty to RoboticScope-assisted palatoplasty performed in 2023. Patient demographics collected included age, sex, and cleft palate classification (Veau I-IV). Variables measured included operative time, postoperative analgesia, oral intake, hospital stay, and complication rates. Ergonomic evaluations were performed through surgeons documenting their feedback on comfort and surgical efficiency, including dissection and repair. Results: RoboticScope-assisted palatoplasty averaged 28 minutes longer than the conventional method. Postoperative analgesic needs also differed: 100% of the patients who underwent conventional palatoplasty required morphine, whereas only 50% of the RoboticScope patients required morphine. Seventy-five percent of the RoboticScope patients demonstrated good oral intake on day 1, and 50% of the patients were discharged 1 day earlier than the conventional group. Conclusions: This study concludes that RoboticScope-assisted palatoplasty is safe and feasible, and is associated with fewer analgesic needs, better oral intake, and ergonomic benefits for surgeons than conventional palatoplasty. However, due to the limited nature of the study sample, future multicenter studies with a larger cohort group would be essential to validate these outcomes.
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.