MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413066678 · doi:10.30574/wjarr.2025.27.1.2672

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

2025· review· en· W4413066678 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emmanouil Dandoulakis

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Surgical Oncology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniofacialMedicineArtificial intelligenceRoboticsMEDLINECochrane LibraryMedical physicsCraniofacial surgeryRobotComputer scienceSurgeryRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.170
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Advanced Research and ReviewsSame topicHead and Neck Surgical OncologyFrench-language works237,207