ReviewCureus2025
Exploring the Use of Robotics in Reconstructive and Plastic Surgery: A Comprehensive Perspective.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid advancements have revolutionized robot-assisted surgery (RAS) in the healthcare field, owing to substantial investments in the technology. The development of RAS progressed alongside advancements in microscopes and instruments, enabling microsurgeons to perform supermicrosurgical procedures in a more precise and efficient manner. This paper critically appraises the contemporary literature on RAS, exploring the risks and benefits of integrating and investing in emerging robotic technologies within plastic and reconstructive surgery, along with its limitations and challenges. This narrative review includes systematic reviews, case series, and prospective and retrospective reviews retrieved from PubMed published within the last 10 years, written in English, and conducted in live human subjects. Studies addressed applications of RAS in microsurgery, head and neck reconstruction, breast reconstruction, lymphovenous anastomosis, and aesthetic procedures. The review emphasized clinical outcomes, ergonomic impacts, patient satisfaction, safety, complication rates, and technological innovations. The current literature suggests that RAS is comparable, if not superior, to conventional techniques with respect to safety and effectiveness in specific reconstructive procedures. Reported benefits encompass shorter hospital stays, fewer complications, improved cosmetic outcomes, and enhanced surgeon dexterity. However, challenges persist, such as steep learning curves, high acquisition and maintenance costs, and a lack of tactile feedback, although these limitations are slowly being overcome through continued research and technological innovations. RAS is revolutionizing plastic and reconstructive surgery by enhancing surgical precision, ergonomics, and patient recovery. However, widespread adoption is constrained by substantial costs and the pace of technological evolution. Evidence has shown how it has become an essential component of modern surgical practice. Future research should prioritize high-quality comparative trials, cost-effectiveness analyses, and training programs to facilitate broader clinical integration.
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.