Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robotics in Plastic Surgery

  • Plastic Surgery (D. Otterburn, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Surgery Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The advent of robotic surgery has revolutionized the modern treatment of a multitude of surgical diseases. With its enhanced precision, greater degrees of freedom, superior three-dimensional vision, improved resolution, and tremor elimination, robotic surgery is now playing a pivotal role in minimally invasive gynecologic, cardiothoracic, urologic, otolaryngologic, and gastrointestinal procedures. During the past decade, the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery has also started to embrace this innovative technology, especially for challenging reconstructive cases. Robotic surgery has not only enabled plastic surgeons to perform flap harvest procedures with minimal donor-site morbidity and enhanced cosmesis, but it has also allowed them to perform procedures never possible before. In this review, we illustrate the current clinical applications of robotics in plastic surgery and analyze their limitations based on the literature and our own experience in the field. We finish by presenting the technological challenges restricting the widespread use of robotics in plastic surgery, and outline some of our recent research efforts aimed at overcoming those limitations and promoting broader application of this innovative technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Machtay M, Moughan J, Trotti A, Garden AS, Weber RS, Cooper JS, Forastiere A, Ang KK. Factors associated with severe late toxicity after concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced head and neck cancer: an RTOG analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3582–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Walvekar RR, Li RJ, Gooding WE, Gibson MK, Heron D, Johnson JT, Ferris RL. Role of surgery in limited (T1-2, N0-1) cancers of the oropharynx. Laryngoscope. 2008;118:2129–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nguyen NP, Vos P, Smith HJ, Nguyen PD, Alfieri A, Karlsson U, Dutta S, Lemanski C, Nguyen LM, Sallah S. Concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced oropharyngeal cancer. Am J Otolaryngol. 2007;28:3–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Weinstein GS, O’malley BW, Hockstein NG. Transoral robotic surgery: supraglottic laryngectomy in a canine model. Laryngoscope. 2005;115:1315–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Genden EM, Desai S, Sung C-K. Transoral robotic surgery for the management of head and neck cancer: a preliminary experience. Head Neck. 2009;31:283–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dowthwaite SA, Franklin JH, Palma DA, Fung K, Yoo J, Nichols AC. The role of transoral robotic surgery in the management of oropharyngeal cancer: a review of the literature. ISRN Oncol. 2012;2012:945162.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. • Selber JC, Sarhane KA, Ibrahim AE, Holsinger FC. Transoral robotic reconstructive surgery. Semin Plast Surg. 2014;28:35–8. This articles describes the technique of transoral robotic reconstruction, shows its advantages over the open procedure, and outlines its main indications.

  8. De Almeida JR, Park RCW, Genden EM. Reconstruction of transoral robotic surgery defects: principles and techniques. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2012;28:465–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Song HG, Yun IS, Lee WJ, Lew DH, Rah DK. Robot-assisted free flap in head and neck reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg. 2013;40:353–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Selber JC, Robb G, Serletti JM, Weinstein G, Weber R, Holsinger FC. Transoral robotic free flap reconstruction of oropharyngeal defects: a preclinical investigation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:896–900.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Selber JC. Transoral robotic reconstruction of oropharyngeal defects: a case series. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:1978–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. • Nectoux E, Taleb C, Liverneaux P. Nerve repair in telemicrosurgery: an experimental study. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2009;25:261–5. This article introduces robotic micro-neural surgery and shows that telesurgery allows very safe and precise peripheral nerve repairs.

  13. Tigan L, Miyamoto H, Hendriks S, Facca S, Liverneaux P. Interest of telemicrosurgery in peripheral nerve tumors: about a series of seven cases. Chir Main. 2014;33:13–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Facca S, Hendriks S, Mantovani G, Selber JC, Liverneaux P. Robot-assisted surgery of the shoulder girdle and brachial plexus. Semin Plast Surg. 2014;28:39–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Chang DW. Lymphaticovenular bypass for lymphedema management in breast cancer patients: a prospective study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:752–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Maxwell GP, Stueber K, Hoopes JE. A free latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap: case report. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1978;62:462–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lin CH, Wei FC, Levin LS, Chen MC. Donor-site morbidity comparison between endoscopically assisted and traditional harvest of free latissimus dorsi muscle flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104:1070–7 (Quiz 1078).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pomel C, Missana MC, Lasser P. Endoscopic harvesting of the latissimus dorsi flap in breast reconstructive surgery: feasibility study and review of the literature. Ann Chir. 2002;127:337–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fine NA, Orgill DP, Pribaz JJ. Early clinical experience in endoscopic-assisted muscle flap harvest. Ann Plast Surg. 1994;33:465–9 (Discussion 469–72).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Selber JC, Baumann DP, Holsinger CF. Robotic harvest of the latissimus dorsi muscle: laboratory and clinical experience. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2012;28:457–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. •• Selber JC, Baumann DP, Holsinger FC. Robotic latissimus dorsi muscle harvest: a case series. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:1305–12. This article introduces the technique of robotic latissimus dorsi muscle harvest, and shows that it is effective and offers technical advantages over endoscopic harvest and aesthetic advantages over the open technique.

  22. Ibrahim AE, Clemens MW, Sarhane KA, Selber JC. Robotic surgery in breast reconstruction: harvest of the latissimus dorsi muscle flap. Breast Reconstr Art Sci New Clin Technol. 2016. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-18726-6.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Chung J-H, You H-J, Kim H-S, Lee B-I, Park S-H, Yoon E-S. A novel technique for robot assisted latissimus dorsi flap harvest. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2015;68:966–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Clemens MW, Kronowitz S, Selber JC. Robotic-assisted latissimus dorsi harvest in delayed-immediate breast reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg. 2014;28:20–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Selber J, Pederson J. Muscle flaps. Telemicrosurgery robot assist microsurgy. Paris: Springer; 2012. p. 147–58.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Patel NV, Pedersen JC. Robotic harvest of the rectus abdominis muscle: a preclinical investigation and case report. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2012;28:477–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. •• Ibrahim A, Sarhane K, Pederson J, Selber J. Robotic harvest of the rectus abdominis muscle: principles and clinical applications. Semin Plast Surg. 2014;28:26–31. This article introduces the technique of robotic harvest of the rectus abdominis muscle flap, describes its principles and clinical applications, and shows its efficacy and decreased morbidity in comparision to the traditional technique.

  28. Selber JC. Robotic latissimus dorsi muscle harvest. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(2):88e–90e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31821ef25d.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Satava RM. Virtual reality, telesurgery, and the new world order of medicine. J Image Guide Surg. 1995;1:12–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Suzuki S, Suzuki N, Hayashibe M, Hattori A, Konishi K, Kakeji Y, Hashizume M. Tele-surgical simulation system for training in the use of da Vinci surgery. Stud Health Technol Inf. 2005;111:543–8.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hino A. Training in microvascular surgery using a chicken wing artery. Neurosurgery. 2003;52:1495–7 (Discussion 1497–8).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Seyhan T, Seyan T, Ozerdem OR. Microsurgery training on discarded abdominoplasty material. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117:2536–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC, Gilberg-Fisher KM, Arain NA, Tesfay ST, Scott DJ. Developing a comprehensive, proficiency-based training program for robotic surgery. Surgery. 2012;152:477–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. •• Selber JC, Alrasheed T. Robotic microsurgical training and evaluation. Semin Plast Surg. 2014;28:5–10. This article introduces and validates the Structured Assessment of Robotic Microsurgical Skills (SARMS). This surgcial evaluation tool combines the previously validated Structured Assessment of Microsurgical Skills (SAMS) with other skill domains in robotic surgery.

  35. •• Alrasheed T, Liu J, Hanasono MM, Butler CE, Selber JC. Robotic microsurgery: validating an assessment tool and plotting the learning curve. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:794–803. This article shows that the Structured Assessment of Robotic Microsurgery Skills is a valid instrument, with excellent interrater reliability, for assessing robotic microsurgical skills, and paves the road to customized education, curricular designs with individual assessment, targeted feedback, and competency-based learning.

  36. Karamanoukian RL, Bui T, McConnell MP, Evans GRD, Karamanoukian HL. Transfer of training in robotic-assisted microvascular surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 2006;57:662–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. •• Selber JC, Chang EI, Liu J, Suami H, Adelman DM, Garvey P, Hanasono MM, Butler CE. Tracking the learning curve in microsurgical skill acquisition. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:550e–7e. This article shows that the Structured Assessment of Microsurgery Skills questionnaire is a valid instrument for assessing microsurgical skills, providing individualized feedback with acceptable interevaluator reliability.

  38. Balasundaram I, Aggarwal R, Darzi LA. Development of a training curriculum for microsurgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;48:598–606.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Temple CLF, Ross DC. A new, validated instrument to evaluate competency in microsurgery: the University of Western Ontario Microsurgical Skills Acquisition/Assessment instrument (outcomes article). Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:215–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chan W-Y, Matteucci P, Southern SJ. Validation of microsurgical models in microsurgery training and competence: a review. Microsurgery. 2007;27:494–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Chan W, Niranjan N, Ramakrishnan V. Structured assessment of microsurgery skills in the clinical setting. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63:1329–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ibrahim AE, Sarhane KA, Baroud JS, Atiyeh BS. Robotics in plastic surgery: a review. Eur J Plast Surg. 2012;35:571–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tan GY, Goel RK, Kaouk JH, Tewari AK. Technological advances in robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Urol Clin N Am. 2009;36:237–249, ix.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Teber D, Baumhauer M, Guven EO, Rassweiler J. Robotic and imaging in urological surgery. Curr Opin Urol. 2009;19:108–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon

    Amir E. Ibrahim

  2. Department of Surgery, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA

    Karim A. Sarhane

  3. Department of Plastic Surgery, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1488, 1400 Pressler Street, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Jesse C. Selber

Authors
  1. Amir E. Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karim A. Sarhane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jesse C. Selber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesse C. Selber.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Plastic Surgery.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ibrahim, A.E., Sarhane, K.A. & Selber, J.C. Robotics in Plastic Surgery. Curr Surg Rep 4, 9 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-016-0130-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40137-016-0130-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation