ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Perception and Reality of Robotic Microsurgery: A Cross-sectional Comparative User and Nonuser Survey Study.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advancing Robotic-assisted Microsurgery for Access to Deep Anatomical Structures.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With robotic microsurgical systems (RMSs) gaining increasing interest in clinical application, user feedback is crucial for their future development. Additionally, understanding the realistic advantages and limitations of RMSs among nonusers is crucial for broader clinical adoption and appropriate patient selection. This study aimed to assess user experiences on advantages, disadvantages, necessary improvements, and future developments of RMSs and compare it to the views of nonusers on the same aspects. Methods: An international online survey was conducted among microsurgeons, assessing their views on the aforementioned aspects of RMSs. User and nonuser replies were compared and assessed for differences and similarities to draw conclusions about the experiences and expectations of both groups. Results: A total of 68 surgeon replies were included, consisting of 14 users and 54 nonusers from 17 countries. Results showed that users appreciated tremor reduction and improved anastomotic quality as advantages, which were significantly underestimated by nonusers. Nonusers overestimated potential advantages like improved access to deep structures and an increased range of motion and underestimated disadvantages like a flat learning curve. Both groups agreed on the need for technical improvements, particularly in reducing system costs and setup times. For future indications, users saw significant importance in the role of RMSs in reducing human error. Conclusions: Our findings underscore the potential of RMSs, drawing a realistic picture of real user experiences and nonuser expectations and highlighting key areas for further technological advancement before broader adoption.
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.