Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ World Journal of Adv...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews
Article . 2025 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Article . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: ZENODO
SSRN Electronic Journal
Article . 2025 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
ZENODO
Article . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Article . 2025
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 4 versions
addClaim

Robotic surgery in craniofacial reconstruction: A systematic review of techniques, outcomes, and limitations

Authors: Dandoulakis, Emmanouil;

Robotic surgery in craniofacial reconstruction: A systematic review of techniques, outcomes, and limitations

Abstract

The proposed study is a systematic review that will evaluate the application of robotic surgery in craniofacial reconstruction, focusing on the breadth of surgical use, pre- and post-clinical outcomes, and deficiencies in modern practices and perspectives within the field. According to the PRISMA guidelines, the literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, and studies published between January 2000 and May 2025 were identified. The terms included the search query, robot surgery, craniofacial reconstruction, and similar. The peer-reviewed articles were accepted as inclusion criteria based on the report on robot use in craniofacial procedures and statistics on methods, outcomes, or limitations. The exclusion criteria were robotic, non-craniofacial, and animal research. The documented information included the study design, patient demographics, robotic systems, anatomical focus, surgical outcomes, and limitations. The Newcastle-Ottawa or the ROBINS-I tool was used to determine quality. Synthesis of narratives was conducted, and homogeneous results were considered for meta-analysis. Various robotic methods, including transoral robotic surgery and endoscopic-assisted techniques, were defined and reviewed for use in cranial vault, orbital, and mandibular reconstruction. Clinical results were more precise, with less blood loss and more aesthetically pleasing outcomes than traditional methods, but also, operative times differed. The risks of complications were reduced, but they still involved nerve damage and infections. Constraints included expense, sharp learning feats, and the inability of instruments to navigate exterior spaces in a pinch. The transformative potential of robotics is evident in the application of robot-assisted surgery for craniofacial reconstruction, which enhances accuracy and improves patient outcomes. Research, however, through randomized trials and the development of specialized instruments, is required due to a lack of technical elements, economic considerations, and evidence to determine its effective integration in the clinical sphere.

Keywords

Minimally invasive surgery, Clinical outcomes, Craniofacial reconstruction, Head and neck surgery, Robotic surgery, Surgical techniques, Precision surgery

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green
gold