Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40524882›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025

Perception and Reality of Robotic Microsurgery: A Cross-sectional Comparative User and Nonuser Survey Study.

Maximilian Mayrhofer-Schmid, Martin Aman, Floris V Raasveld, Wen-Chih Liu, Felix Struebing, Ulrich Kneser, Kyle R Eberlin, Leila Harhaus, Arne Hendrik Boecker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Advancing Robotic-assisted Microsurgery for Access to Deep Anatomical Structures.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026
    Article
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

9 authors.

Maximilian Mayrhofer-SchmidFrom the Department of Hand, Plastic, and Reconstructive Surgery, BG Klinik Ludwigshafen, Burn Center at Heidelberg University, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Martin AmanFrom the Department of Hand, Plastic, and Reconstructive Surgery, BG Klinik Ludwigshafen, Burn Center at Heidelberg University, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Floris V RaasveldDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hand and Arm Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Wen-Chih LiuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hand and Arm Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Felix StruebingFrom the Department of Hand, Plastic, and Reconstructive Surgery, BG Klinik Ludwigshafen, Burn Center at Heidelberg University, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Ulrich KneserFrom the Department of Hand, Plastic, and Reconstructive Surgery, BG Klinik Ludwigshafen, Burn Center at Heidelberg University, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Kyle R EberlinDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Leila HarhausFrom the Department of Hand, Plastic, and Reconstructive Surgery, BG Klinik Ludwigshafen, Burn Center at Heidelberg University, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Arne Hendrik BoeckerFrom the Department of Hand, Plastic, and Reconstructive Surgery, BG Klinik Ludwigshafen, Burn Center at Heidelberg University, Ludwigshafen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID40524882
PMCPMC12169961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.