ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Artificial Intelligence and Robotic Surgery in Lymphedema: A Scoping Review of Current Applications, Clinical Translation, and Evidence Gaps.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lymphedema is a debilitating disease, in which timely diagnosis and standardized monitoring are essential to prevent progression. Artificial intelligence (AI) has increasingly been applied in other surgical disciplines. Therefore, this review summarizes current AI applications in lymphedema management and explores their potential for clinical translation. Methods: The PubMed/MEDLINE database was searched from inception to June 2025 for studies on lymphedema and AI. Peer-reviewed primary studies were included; editorials, reviews, and commentaries were excluded. All reference lists were screened for additional studies. Findings were synthesized qualitatively and grouped by clinical task. Results: Existing studies primarily evaluate AI for risk prediction, symptom- or image-based screening, automated volumetry, and lymphatic imaging interpretation. Reported performance is frequently high in single-center retrospective datasets; however, external validation and prospective workflow evaluation remain uncommon. Consequently, current applications are largely experimental and rarely used in clinical practice. Conclusions: The integration of AI-assisted systems into the surgical management of chronic lymphedema has the potential to reduce diagnostic delays and to enable early therapeutic intervention. Additionally, it may improve surgical simulation, training, and real-time support in robotic (super-)microsurgery, thereby enhancing personalized patient care. However, translation to routine practice will require multicenter validation, transparent reporting, and demonstration of clinical utility, cost-effectiveness, and safety.
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.