Evaluating the Clinical Utility of Robotic Systems in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Systematic Review
<b>Background</b>: Robotic surgical systems offer enhanced precision, motion scaling, tremor filtration, and visualization, making them highly suitable for the complex anatomical demands of plastic and reconstructive surgery. While widely implemented in other specialties, their integrati...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | Sensors |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/25/10/3238 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850126768246095872 |
|---|---|
| author | Ishith Seth Kaiyang Lim Edmond Chang Warren M. Rozen Sally Kiu-Huen Ng |
| author_facet | Ishith Seth Kaiyang Lim Edmond Chang Warren M. Rozen Sally Kiu-Huen Ng |
| author_sort | Ishith Seth |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <b>Background</b>: Robotic surgical systems offer enhanced precision, motion scaling, tremor filtration, and visualization, making them highly suitable for the complex anatomical demands of plastic and reconstructive surgery. While widely implemented in other specialties, their integration in plastic surgery remains limited. This systematic review evaluates the clinical applications, outcomes, and limitations of robotic-assisted techniques in plastic and reconstructive procedures. <b>Methods</b>: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published between January 1980 and March 2025. Clinical studies reporting robotic applications in plastic surgery were included, while cadaveric, animal, and non-English studies were excluded. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed using Covidence and validated tools including the CARE checklist, NOS, GRADE, and SYRCLE. A total of 1428 studies were screened, and 31 met the inclusion criteria. <b>Results</b>: Robotic systems were primarily applied in microsurgery (<i>n = 16</i>), breast reconstruction (<i>n = 8</i>), and craniofacial/aesthetic surgery (<i>n = 7</i>). Common platforms included the Symani Surgical System, Da Vinci systems, and ARTAS. Robotic-assisted approaches improved precision, aesthetic outcomes, flap survival, and patient satisfaction, particularly in procedures involving lymphaticovenous anastomosis and nipple-sparing mastectomy. However, challenges included steep learning curves, longer operative times, high equipment costs, and the lack of haptic feedback. Quality assessment rated all studies as moderate. <b>Conclusions</b>: Robotic-assisted surgery demonstrates considerable potential in enhancing plastic and reconstructive outcomes. As systems become more compact, cost-effective, and integrated with AI and biomimetic technologies, their broader adoption is anticipated. Further high-quality studies are needed to optimize these systems and support widespread clinical implementation. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-29d0ed68f5b7492cbbfcd336767470f4 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1424-8220 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-05-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Sensors |
| spelling | doaj-art-29d0ed68f5b7492cbbfcd336767470f42025-08-20T02:33:51ZengMDPI AGSensors1424-82202025-05-012510323810.3390/s25103238Evaluating the Clinical Utility of Robotic Systems in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Systematic ReviewIshith Seth0Kaiyang Lim1Edmond Chang2Warren M. Rozen3Sally Kiu-Huen Ng4Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC 3084, AustraliaDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Peninsula Health, Frankston, VIC 3199, AustraliaDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC 3084, AustraliaFaculty of Medicine and Surgery, Peninsula Clinical School, Monash University, Frankston, VIC 3199, AustraliaDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC 3084, Australia<b>Background</b>: Robotic surgical systems offer enhanced precision, motion scaling, tremor filtration, and visualization, making them highly suitable for the complex anatomical demands of plastic and reconstructive surgery. While widely implemented in other specialties, their integration in plastic surgery remains limited. This systematic review evaluates the clinical applications, outcomes, and limitations of robotic-assisted techniques in plastic and reconstructive procedures. <b>Methods</b>: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published between January 1980 and March 2025. Clinical studies reporting robotic applications in plastic surgery were included, while cadaveric, animal, and non-English studies were excluded. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed using Covidence and validated tools including the CARE checklist, NOS, GRADE, and SYRCLE. A total of 1428 studies were screened, and 31 met the inclusion criteria. <b>Results</b>: Robotic systems were primarily applied in microsurgery (<i>n = 16</i>), breast reconstruction (<i>n = 8</i>), and craniofacial/aesthetic surgery (<i>n = 7</i>). Common platforms included the Symani Surgical System, Da Vinci systems, and ARTAS. Robotic-assisted approaches improved precision, aesthetic outcomes, flap survival, and patient satisfaction, particularly in procedures involving lymphaticovenous anastomosis and nipple-sparing mastectomy. However, challenges included steep learning curves, longer operative times, high equipment costs, and the lack of haptic feedback. Quality assessment rated all studies as moderate. <b>Conclusions</b>: Robotic-assisted surgery demonstrates considerable potential in enhancing plastic and reconstructive outcomes. As systems become more compact, cost-effective, and integrated with AI and biomimetic technologies, their broader adoption is anticipated. Further high-quality studies are needed to optimize these systems and support widespread clinical implementation.https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/25/10/3238roboticplastic surgeryreconstructive surgerymicrosurgerysystematic review |
| spellingShingle | Ishith Seth Kaiyang Lim Edmond Chang Warren M. Rozen Sally Kiu-Huen Ng Evaluating the Clinical Utility of Robotic Systems in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Systematic Review Sensors robotic plastic surgery reconstructive surgery microsurgery systematic review |
| title | Evaluating the Clinical Utility of Robotic Systems in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Systematic Review |
| title_full | Evaluating the Clinical Utility of Robotic Systems in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Systematic Review |
| title_fullStr | Evaluating the Clinical Utility of Robotic Systems in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Systematic Review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluating the Clinical Utility of Robotic Systems in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Systematic Review |
| title_short | Evaluating the Clinical Utility of Robotic Systems in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: A Systematic Review |
| title_sort | evaluating the clinical utility of robotic systems in plastic and reconstructive surgery a systematic review |
| topic | robotic plastic surgery reconstructive surgery microsurgery systematic review |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/25/10/3238 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ishithseth evaluatingtheclinicalutilityofroboticsystemsinplasticandreconstructivesurgeryasystematicreview AT kaiyanglim evaluatingtheclinicalutilityofroboticsystemsinplasticandreconstructivesurgeryasystematicreview AT edmondchang evaluatingtheclinicalutilityofroboticsystemsinplasticandreconstructivesurgeryasystematicreview AT warrenmrozen evaluatingtheclinicalutilityofroboticsystemsinplasticandreconstructivesurgeryasystematicreview AT sallykiuhuenng evaluatingtheclinicalutilityofroboticsystemsinplasticandreconstructivesurgeryasystematicreview |