ReviewJPRAS open2026
Robotic-assisted lymphatic surgery for lymphedema: Bibliometric mapping of an emerging reconstructive field.
Review in JPRAS 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lymphatic reconstruction, including lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) and vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT), is an established surgical treatment for chronic lymphedema. However, these procedures rely on supermicrosurgical manipulation of submillimeter vessels, rendering outcomes highly dependent on surgeon dexterity and technical precision. Robotic platforms have recently been introduced to enhance stability and tremor filtration. However, the evidence and true patient benefit of the existing literature remain subject of ongoing debate. Methods: A bibliometric analysis of the Web of Science Core Collection was conducted to identify publications on robotic-assisted lymphatic reconstruction from database inception to February 2026. Eligible records were manually screened. Publication trends, levels of evidence, citation metrics, geographic distribution, and collaborative networks were analyzed using VOSviewer. Results: Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Publication activity became more consistent from 2023 onward, accounting for 71.4% of all articles. The evidence base was dominated by low-quality studies, with level V research comprising 68.6% of publications. Notably, research output was concentrated within a limited number of high-volume centers, primarily located in the United States and Switzerland, with little international collaboration. Conclusions: Robotic-assisted lymphatic surgery for lymphedema is a rapidly emerging field characterized by increasing publication activity, but limited quality of evidence. Current studies support technical feasibility in selected settings, but remain insufficient to establish clinical superiority or cost-effectiveness compared with manual surgery. The field is currently driven by technological innovation rather than high-level clinical validation. Prospective comparative studies are required to define the role of robotic platforms in physiological lymphatic reconstruction.
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.