Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Jun;46(6):1314-1324.
doi: 10.1007/s00268-022-06492-2. Epub 2022 Mar 8.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Robotic Surgery From 2001 to 2021

A Musbahi  1 , C B Rao  2 , A Immanuel  1
Affiliations
Review

A Bibliometric Analysis of Robotic Surgery From 2001 to 2021

A Musbahi et al. World J Surg. 2022 Jun.

Abstract

Introduction: Bibliometric analyses are a method of evaluating the quality of research output in a certain domain. Robotic surgery has made vast leaps during the past 20 years and this paper aimed to assess some of the main areas of research using this method.

Methods: A search was undertaken for documents published between 2001 and 2021 from the World of Science database, using the keywords 'robotic surgery', 'robotic assisted surgery' and 'robotic-assisted surgery. Results were compared using numerous bibliometric methodologies, and stratified by source-specific metrics, author-specific metrics and country-specific metrics.

Results: The search yielded 3839 documents, from 879 different sources. Only 2% of sources were found to be within Bradford's Zone 1 of research and the most relevant sources were from the field of urology. The Journal of Urology and Surgical Endoscopy and other Techniques ranked highly among metrics such as H, G, M index and total citations. The top-rated authors had a H index of 15 in the field of robotic surgery and the total citations reached a peak at 1342. The USA, Japan and Italy were the most productive nations and increased collaborative research is leading to a greater number of multiple-centre publications.

Conclusion: Research into robotic surgery is still in its infancy with further reviews of the literature and greater output through large randomised controlled trials in multiple centres through collaborative research needed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Graph showing the annual scientific production
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Graph showing the distribution of the Top 25 most relevant sources
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Pie Chart showing Bradford's Law
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Graph showing the h index, g index, m index and total citations of the top 25 most productive sources
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Graph showing the corresponding authors by countries
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Diagram showing distribution of the top 50 keywords, based on their total number of occurrences
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Graph showing the evolution of keywords from 2008 to 2021
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kwoh YS, Hou J, Jonckheere EA, Hayati S. A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1988;35(2):153–160. doi: 10.1109/10.1354. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ashrafian H, Clancy O, Grover V, Darzi A. The evolution of robotic surgery: surgical and anaesthetic aspects. BJA Br J Anaesth [Internet]. 2017;119(suppl_1):i72–84. Available from: 10.1093/bja/aex383 - PubMed
    1. Nix J, Smith A, Kurpad R, Nielsen ME, Wallen EM, Pruthi RS. Prospective randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative and pathologic results. Eur Urol [Internet]. 2010;57(2):196–201. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0302283809010288 - PubMed
    1. Li K, Rollins J, Yan E. Web of Science use in published research and review papers 1997–2017: a selective, dynamic, cross-domain, content-based analysis. Scientometrics [Internet]. 2017/12/18. 2018;115(1):1–20. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29527070 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wang Q, Waltman L. Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus. J Informetr [Internet]. 2016;10(2):347–64. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157715301930