↓ Skip to main content

Current Limitations of Surgical Robotics in Reconstructive Plastic Microsurgery

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Surgery, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Current Limitations of Surgical Robotics in Reconstructive Plastic Microsurgery
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2018.00022
Pubmed ID
Authors

Youri P. A. Tan, Philippe Liverneaux, Jason K. F. Wong

Abstract

Surgical robots have the potential to provide surgeons with increased capabilities, such as removing physiologic tremor, scaling motion and increasing manual dexterity. Several surgical specialties have subsequently integrated robotic surgery into common clinical practice. Plastic and reconstructive microsurgical procedures have not yet  benefitted significantly from technical developments observed over the last two decades. Several studies have successfully demonstrated the feasibility of utilising surgical robots in plastic surgery procedures, yet limited work has been done to identify and analyse current barriers that have prevented wide-scale adaptation of surgical robots for microsurgery. Therefore, a systematic review using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases was performed, in order to evaluate current state of surgical robotics within the field of reconstructive microsurgery and their limitations. Despite the theoretical potential of surgical robots, current commercially available robotic systems are suboptimal for plastic or reconstructive microsurgery. Absence of bespoke microsurgical instruments, increases in operating time, and high costs associated with robotic-assisted provide a barrier to using such systems effectively for reconstructive microsurgery. Consequently, surgical robots provide currently little overall advantage over conventional microsurgery. Nevertheless, if current barriers can be addressed and systems are specifically designed for microsurgery, surgical robots may have the potential of meaningful impact on clinical outcomes within  this surgical subspeciality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Other 6 9%
Researcher 4 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 29 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 18 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 15%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 31 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 June 2019.
All research outputs
#4,200,869
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#150
of 2,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,063
of 332,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#3
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,998 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,500 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.