ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2026
Bibliometric mapping of transoral robotic surgery literature (2005-2025): disciplinary maturation, global research architecture, and emerging knowledge domains.
Review in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Radiotherapy integration after transoral robotic surgery in head and neck cancer: a bibliometric and knowledge-mapping analysis of adjuvant treatment, de-escalation, functional preservation, and survival outcomes.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Mapping the global research landscape and knowledge structure of robotic-assisted dental, oral and maxillofacial surgery: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) has rapidly expanded across oncologic and sleep surgery, yet its global evidence base remains fragmented. Prior bibliometric studies examined generic robotic surgery or TORS subsets without search-optimized, domain-specific mapping. Therefore, this study was designed to construct a comprehensive, data-driven bibliometric map of TORS research. A Scopus-based, multi-step search identified 938 English-language TORS articles. R-Based Bibliometrix and VOSviewer were used to analyze publication and citation trends, countries, institutions, sources, collaboration networks, co-citation structures, keyword co-occurrence, thematic evolution, Bradford's law, and emerging research fronts. From 2005 to 2025, TORS discourse across 197 sources showed 21.2% annual growth, with lower per-article citations recently. The United States dominated volume and citations, followed by Italy, the United Kingdom, South Korea, and Canada. Leading institutions included the University of Pennsylvania, Yonsei University, and North American cancer centers. Collaboration networks showed clustered, US-centered international partnerships and tightly connected author communities. Core journals (Laryngoscope, Head and Neck, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Journal of Robotic Surgery) concentrated output, consistent with Bradford's Law. Keyword and trend analyses indicated transition from technique-focused terms to HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer, functional outcomes, and de-escalation. Thematic maps and evolution analyses highlighted TORS and obstructive sleep apnea as motor themes, with niche domains such as base-of-tongue lesions and sialendoscopy. TORS research is rapidly expanding yet geographically concentrated, with evolving focus from technical feasibility toward oncologic, functional, and patient-centered themes, guiding multicenter trials, de-escalation strategies, and precision oncology integration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41639406What 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.