SynthesisMicrosurgery2026
Dedicated Robotic-Assisted Microsurgery Platforms in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Microsurgery, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDedicated robotic-assisted microsurgical systems (RAMS), including the Symani Surgical System and MUSA, were developed to overcome physiological tremor, surgeon fatigue, and restricted maneuverability in deep surgical fields. Existing reviews of robotic plastic surgery largely span heterogeneous applications beyond microsurgery or lack structured risk-of-bias appraisal specific to dedicated microsurgical platforms. This review systematically synthesizes clinical outcomes, learning-curve dynamics, and technological features of dedicated RAMS platforms in microsurgery, incorporating structured risk-of-bias appraisal to clarify the evidence base and inform clinical adoption.
methodsStudies published 2015-2025 were identified through PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science (PROSPERO CRD420261320086). Following independent screening, 21 studies were included, assessing free flap survival, anastomotic patency, complications, operative times, and learning-curve metrics.
resultsFree flap reconstruction showed high survival (96%-100%); supermicrosurgical anastomosis patency was 96.6%-100%. Robotic anastomosis times fell 51%-66% with experience (largest reduction 66.1%, for deep-plane arterial anastomosis), though times remained longer than manual benchmarks even after the learning phase (e.g., 25.3 ± 12.3 vs. 14.1 ± 4.3 min for mixed procedures). Conversion/failure was infrequent (0%-4.3%). Motion scaling (up to 20×) and tremor filtration were consistent advantages; haptic feedback remained universally absent.
conclusionDedicated RAMS platforms are safe and effective for micro- and supermicrosurgical reconstruction, non-inferior to manual techniques. Initial time penalties resolve with experience. Future research should prioritize randomized controlled trials, standardized outcome measures, and cost-effectiveness analyses.
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.