Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article gives an overview of robotic and navigation systems in the orthopaedic field.

The review is well structured and contains some interesting aspects. However, there are some points that should be considered to improve the manuscript.

A discussion on the specificities of robotic systems for orthopaedic applications compared to other use cases should be included in the introduction. Although some information is already included in the article, an introduction on this topic would allow a better understanding of the specific features of the presented robotic systems.

For this purpose, a direct comparison with other reviews on the presented topic or similar topics is important. An additional value for the reader could be the possibility to have easy access to robot documentation and video recordings. Specific links to multimedia material available on the Internet for the systems presented can improve the effectiveness of the review.

Minor comments

In the caption of Fig. 3, information such as paper2007 is ambiguous. Please delete them or cite the paper with the indication (author et al.).

There are figures (see Fig. 4) with very poor resolution, please improve the quality.

 

Include a reference to all figures in the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper introduces the review of the robotic systems and navigation technologies in the orthopaedic surgeries in the historical perspective. The authors have covered the field comprehensively, however, there are some issues that can be tackled to improve the manuscript.

1 – There are a lot of robotic systems and computer aided navigation systems mentioned in the paper. Table 1 gives a summary table of the technologies, however, the reviewer suggests to include the comparison table of robotic systems in orthopaedic surgeries, based on the following surgical process criteria: Incision size, surgical instruments, surgeon location, performance, dexterity, risk of infection, accessibility, recovery time and cost.

2 - The authors must include a section on the AI based advanced features that will going to influence the robotic systems and navigation technologies and cover what can be termed as the state-of-the-art development in this area. 

 

3 - Cyberknife technology can also be covered in brief, though not directly linked with orthopaedics, but it is now a days, the most advanced robotics-based radiotherapy system and especially relevant here, for bone cancer treatment.   

 

 

The quality of English language in the manuscript, is fine. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please find the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accepted

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors response is sufficient for this paper publication