From Open, Laparoscopic, or Computerized Surgical Interventions to the Prospects of Image-Guided Involvement
Abstract
:Featured Application
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgeries
2.1. Open vs. MI Surgeries
2.2. MI Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgeries
3. Image-Guided Interventions
4. Control and Monitoring of MRI-Assisted Interventions
4.1. Closed-Loop Control of Image-Guided Robotic Actions
4.2. Compatibility and Control Perturbations
4.2.1. MRI-EMFs and Compatibility
4.2.2. Complexity and Uncertainty Handlings
4.3. DT Supervision of MRI-Assisted Interventions
5. MRI RF Field Ruling Equations
5.1. Models in DT
5.2. EMC Analysis in MRI Setting
6. DT Monitoring Involvements
6.1. Projecting of Medical Arrangements
6.2. Perspectives for Implementation and Tutoring
6.2.1. Human Involvement and Increased DT
6.2.2. Training Potentials
7. Discussion
- The analyses carried out in this contribution focused on open, laparoscopic, robotic, and image-guided surgeries. The only hierarchical classification of these techniques is related to their chronological entry into medicine. The chronological classification is often related to technical innovations such as optical fibers, robotics, numerical control, DT, etc., and mainly to their use in medicine (see for example the studies of [122,123]). Today, each of these surgical techniques has its own specificity and impact depending on the operation concerned and the organ involved. This article in addition has highlighted some potentialities offered by the option of image-assisted surgery and by DT monitoring of the controlled procedure involved. Following the analyses accomplished in this paper relative to the different intervention procedures, Table 1 summarizes an indicative comparison of the different types of interventions regarding invasive class, postoperative scar trace, patient healing time, visualization mode, the control of medical tools, surgical dexterity, the ease of execution, as well as staff ergonomics.
- Regarding the technical innovations mentioned in the previous point, these are often presented as innovative because they find a new modern application even if their notion existed before, for example, the association of earlier neural networks and recent AI. In the context of this article, the recent concept of DT does not escape this observation. The action of DT is based on observation and iterative deduction by imitation introduced by Grieves in 2002 [67], which uses a strategy identical to the oldest method of survival, namely, camouflage described by Bates in 1862 [124], which allows creatures to blend into their environment thanks to adaptive matching.
- All the mentioned types of interventions in this paper are assisted by offline, computerized, or real-time imaging strategies. In open surgery, a pre-made image is exploited offline by the staff. In laparoscopic and robotic surgeries, a pre-made computerized image is involved, and real-time imaging is concerned in image-guided robotic surgery. As for autonomous closed-loop procedures including imaging, they can be used generally in computerized or image-assisted robotic surgeries.
- The concept of DT mentioned and practiced in this article corresponds to different brands of DTs. Indeed, these emphasize the progression of the concept from simple to more sophisticated by adding more capabilities in between. Initially, DT was defined as a static twin, which was followed by twins labeled as mirror (functional or dynamic), shadow (self-adaptive or real-time), and intelligent (self-adaptive augmented by AI). Each of these categories is well suited for specific uses, for example, dynamic for intervention planning, self-adaptive for biomarkers and drug improvement, and intelligent for strategy and care alignment and for individualized treatment.
- In the analysis of DT monitoring (tracking), the notions of complexity, fast matching, coupled models, and reduced models have been addressed at different places. In fact, these four notions are related. A correct matching of a real complex procedure with its virtual replica implies taking into account the real complexity in the virtual model. Thus, the interdependent compound phenomena involved in the complex procedure must be mathematically modeled in a coupled manner [125]. The problem of such an exact full coupled model is that its huge execution time is antagonistic to a supposedly fast real-time matching. One must then find a reduced coupled model behaving exactly physically but with a reduced execution time. In summary, the physical complexity introduces a mathematical complexity, and, for a fast matching, the latter must be reduced but can still represent the former. Thus, reducing a model comprises hurrying its execution while degrading its precision as slim as possible [126]. The dilemma is then often to attain the boundary among saving time and deteriorating correctness. A reduced (surrogate) model is therefore substituted [92,93] for the superior model to obtain a pre-sizing. In addition, one can exercise non-intrusive stochastic methods (e.g., kriging and polynomial chaos) [127,128] that spend 3-D FEM computations with a contained set of realizations (training trials), thus offering efficient (reduction) metamodels.
- Regarding the potential and challenges of using DTs, in addition to studies indicating that their use in the healthcare sector is comprehensive and offers a wide variety of content, other analyses highlighted the challenges and difficulties related to technical fragility as well as data security and confidentiality, which are all obstacles to overcome. DTs in the healthcare sector illustrate a promising fusion of cutting-edge technologies such as AI, IoT, Big Data, and VR to design treatments that improve the efficiency of care. They have transformative potential at various levels of healthcare, from treatment planning to clinical trial design. Their intrinsic ability to provide personalized, prognostic, and dynamic models of specific patients could significantly improve health outcomes, and their ability to replicate complex organizations and leverage available data offers the potential to generate the performance sought by both healthcare providers and technology manufacturers. Nevertheless, DTs are not without challenges. From a technical perspective, the integration of composite technologies, initially not designed to work together, and the need for task synchronization pose a significant challenge. The quality of data shaping DT policy, including its likely direction, the boldness of models, and the diversity of data origins, are just some of the real weaknesses of DTs that need to be seriously assessed to ensure their accuracy and consistency. Moreover, the socio-ethical inferences of DTs are complex. Issues of security and privacy, trust in DT systems, and availability disparities require careful consideration and tailored policy responses [129,130].
- The three different MRI fields B0, B1, and G are assumed to be protected and secure. In fact, the use of MRI scanners is normally safe for patients and medical personnel in the case of using common scanners with moderate efficiency (static field strength and gradient output). For recent high-performance scanners, some traumatic concerns could be observed. Actually, in such circumstances, the EMFs of the scanner can trigger possible uncomfortable side effects for patients or nearby personnel. The RF B1 field reflects a trivial intensity for a negligible duration, and the corresponding tissues that induced currents are insignificant. The pulsed gradient field G produces a variable electric field, which can create unpleasant peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), especially in modern gradient coils with high output (intensity and scanning speed) [131,132]. In fact, efficient gradient coils produce shorter cycles with higher resolutions, thus amplifying their output, which leads to a shorter imaging duration. These PNSs can trigger sensations of muscle compression, irritation, or numbness. The static B0 field is normally safe for common field strengths around 1.5 T. Recently, due to improved performance, ultra-high-field (UHF) MRI scanners (above 7 T) have been introduced [133]. These UHF scanners induce low-frequency currents in the conductive tissues of the moving body inside or near the scanner [134]. These induced currents and their fields trigger uncomfortable sensations such as falling sensation, light flashes, loss of balance, or muscle tremors (PNS). In addition, the interaction between a strong B0 field and living tissues creates magnetic induction effects due not only to the induced currents but also to Lorenz forces [135]. These forces correspond to charged particles moving through the static field and experiencing forces in a direction perpendicular to the motion. These forces depend on the speed of movement and field intensity and could therefore be important in tissues for UHF scanners. Different disorders could arise due to forces such as, for example, magnetic vestibular stimulation (MVS) [136]. A common reported significant side effect caused by these forces is dizziness, which can eventually lead to nausea [137]. They can also cause involuntary eye motion and other effects [138].
- Regarding MRI compatibility issues, conventionally, an MRI is shielded regarding external field exposure. We can largely typify an external object as MRI compatible if it behaves in an MRI-safe manner, not affecting image quality, and working as expected. An incompatible matter can perturb mainly the RF field as abovementioned, which alters the image. The image quality can be deteriorated for diverse reasons related to the scanner fine tuning, living tissue susceptibility discrepancies, body-embedded matters, and medical tools. In the last two cases, metallic materials, which present susceptibility variations, depend on the size, the shape, and the orientation, which are responsible for image alteration. The electrically conducted materials can behave between dielectric and electric conducting functions of EMF wave frequency. Magnetic, dielectric, or conductor materials are characterized, respectively, by the permeability μ (or the susceptibility χ), by the permittivity ε, or by the conductivity σ. In highly magnetic material, μr >> 1 and μr ≈ χ note that μ = μ0 · μr and χ = μr − 1. For non-magnetic material, μr = 1 and χ = 0. The relative values of σ and ω · ε (ω = 2 π f) characterize dielectric vs. electrically conducting behaviors of electrically conducted materials. For low f, σ >> ω · ε ≈ σ and for high f, ω · ε >> σ ≈ ω · ε and σ ≈ 0. A fully MRI-compatible material has zero values for both χ and σ. The dielectric nature of matters does not affect the compatibility. Regarding the RF field distribution, the eventually introduced matters should have μr = 1 and χ = 0, with high ω · ε, or conductors with a trivial cross-section perpendicular to the RF field B1. With such features, the RF field distribution would not be altered. The MRI compatibility check can be accomplished for existing image-guided MRI systems by using experimental means. This can be carried out by measuring the perturbations of the field resulting in the insertion of checked objects within or near the scaffold according to the case. This is generally accomplished via sensors positioned in specific points in the system. Such techniques in the case of MRI are relatively complex due to the necessity of special shielded expensive chambers and the self-perturbation effects of the measuring sensors. Additionally, the characteristics of a tested object could prove dangerous, leading to the degradation of imagery components. Furthermore, such a compatibility check is only possible for existing systems and cannot be used for the design of unbuilt systems. In these circumstances, a more advantageous solution could be a compatibility check with numerical modeling techniques via an EMC analysis for the different inserted objects. In fact, disturbances in the distribution of EMFs in a given structure caused by the introduction of an external material are related to the EMFs produced in that material. In this case, if the EMF noise is reduced or removed, the field distribution of the target structure will be marginal or not affected.
- Interventional robotic operations are difficult to perform and risky for the patient. It is therefore necessary to be aware of possible adverse events in robotic interventions and healthcare robotic safety standards. Indeed, the use of robotic systems for MI intervention has recently experienced rapid growth. Despite their widespread adoption, numerous technical problems and challenges persist during procedures. Understanding the origin of potential adverse events (death, injury, device malfunctions, etc.) and their consequences for patients will help improve systems and operational procedures to prevent future incidents. Adopting advanced practices in the design and operation of robotic interventional devices and the utilization of strengthened tools for recording adverse events could reduce these avoidable incidents [139]. The involved healthcare robotic safety standards can be found in the study of [140].
- Regarding the closed-loop control of image-guided robotic procedures discussed in Section 4.1, different strategies could be exploited. For example, a shape tracking and feedback control method could be used for operative tools during MRI-guided procedures. Information from sensors and position tracking devices can be integrated to enable shape estimation of the tool under MRI and then integrated into an MRI-compatible robotic tool system. A machine learning modeling method can be used for the robotic tool, with shape tracking used for system characterization (see for example the study of [141]).
- Positioning accuracy (or repeatability) was mentioned at various points in the analyses conducted. A robot’s accuracy is its ability to reach a specific target in its workspace. It ensures that it can follow programmed instructions to perform tasks requiring precise positioning. Accuracy depends on the sensors, the control system, and environmental conditions (temperature, vibration, etc.). The robot’s repeatability (consistency) measures how reliably it returns to the same location. It is affected by joint stability (degree of actuation drift), calibration, and durability [142].
- Perturbations in MRI-guided robotic interventions could be reciprocal. Thus, the MRI scanner is sensitive to EM interference caused by the robot, and the robot’s control system may also be disturbed by the scanner’s field [143].
- MRI-compatible robots could be equipped with piezoelectric actuators as mentioned in Section 5.2. The inherent motion range of these actuators is relatively small. Indeed, this range can be extended by an external means of displacement amplification, directly or indirectly, by converting piezoelectric deformation into displacement. The latter can use elaborate structures, repetition, and stepping strategies. Thus, augmented piezoelectric actuators can achieve larger strokes and responses with more degrees of freedom [144].
- Regarding the applicability of MRI and ultrasound to specific image-guided surgical scenarios, these scanners have common features as well as differentiated attributes, including the intended anatomical application [145,146]. Both enable minimally invasive, non-ionizing, and precise strategies, thus improving patient comfort, safety during execution, and therapeutic efficacy. They can operate in real-time closed-loop control, tracking tissue topology, localizing tools, and monitoring their actions. The scanner’s capabilities and robot skills are thus merged into an efficient task. They can also work with technologies associated with AI, VR, and AR in a digital context well suited for planning, prediction, prospecting, and training in surgical activities in general. The main structural difference between these scanners lies in their limitations. Ultrasound can only operate in airless and boneless windows, while MRI requires support with an environment free of EMFs. This difference is related to their complexity, flexibility of use, portability, cost, and, last but not least, their target anatomy. Thus, MRI can work almost in all organs of the body, unlike ultrasound. The latter offers appropriate flexibility, portability, and cost, while MRI, which provides excellent soft tissue images, is more expensive and complex to use. The anatomical interventions targeted by ultrasound are mainly abdominal, obstetric, vascular, gastric, breast, etc. Examples of corresponding surgical scenarios can be found in the studies of [147,148,149,150,151]. Regarding MRI, the anatomies concerned can have a complex background including prostatic, neurosurgical, breast, orthopedic, cardiac, and oral interventions. Examples of concerned surgical scenarios can be found in different sections and references of [19].
- Regarding the applicability of robot-assisted interventions in terms of feasibility, safety, accuracy, immediate clinical success, and short-term local tumor control, different applications can be found in the literature. For example, for the use of robots in medical thermal ablation procedures, see, e.g., the studies of [152,153,154,155].
8. Conclusions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Tondini, T.; Isidro, A.; Camarós, E. Case report: Boundaries of oncological and traumatological medical care in ancient Egypt: New palaeopathological insights from two human skulls. Front. Med. 2024, 11, 1371645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bestetti, R.B.; Daniel, R.F.; Geleilete, T.M.; Almeida, A.L.N. From Shamans to Priests of Sekhmet: A Review of the Literature in Search for the Origins of Doctors in Ancient Egypt. Cureus 2024, 16, e67195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernigou, P.; Hosny, G.A.; Scarlat, M. Evolution of orthopaedic diseases through four thousand three hundred years: From ancient Egypt with virtual examinations of mummies to the twenty-first century. Int. Orthop. 2024, 48, 865–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitlock, J. The Evolution of Surgery: A Historical Timeline. A History of Surgery. Verywell Health. Available online: https://www.verywellhealth.com/the-history-of-surgery-timeline-3157332 (accessed on 3 January 2025).
- Tetteh, E.; Wang, T.; Kim, J.Y.; Smith, T.; Norasi, H.; Van Straaten, M.G.; Lal, G.; Chrouser, K.L.; Shao, J.M.; Hallbeck, M.S. Optimizing ergonomics during open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted surgery: A review of surgical ergonomics literature and development of educational illustrations. Am. J. Surg. 2024, 235, 115551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alkatout, I.; Mechler, U.; Mettler, L.; Pape, J.; Maass, N.; Biebl, M.; Gitas, G.; Laganà, A.S.; Freytag, D. The Development of Laparoscopy-A Historical Overview. Front. Surg. 2021, 8, 799442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barrios, E.L.; Polcz, V.E.; Hensley, S.E.; Sarosi, G.A., Jr.; Mohr, A.M.; Loftus, T.J.; Upchurch, G.R., Jr.; Sumfest, J.M.; Efron, P.A.; Dunleavy, K.; et al. A narrative review of ergonomic problems, principles, and potential solutions in surgical operations. Surgery 2023, 174, 214–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bittner, R. Laparoscopic surgery-15 years after clinical introduction. World J. Surg. 2006, 30, 1190–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez-Salazar, M.J.; Caballero, D.; Sánchez-Margallo, J.A.; Sánchez-Margallo, F.M. Comparative Study of Ergonomics in Conventional and Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery. Sensors 2024, 24, 3840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heemskerk, J.; Zandbergen, R.; Maessen, J.G.; Greve, J.W.; Bouvy, N.D. Advantages of advanced laparoscopic systems. Surg. Endosc. 2006, 20, 730–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bittner, J.G.; Alrefai, S.; Vy, M.; Mabe, M.; Del Prado, P.A.R.; Clingempeel, N.L. Comparative Analysis of Open and Robotic Transversus Abdominis Release for Ventral Hernia Repair. Surg. Endosc. 2017, 32, 727–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Misiakos, E.P.; Patapis, P.; Zavras, N.; Tzanetis, P.; Machairas, A. Current Trends in Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair. JSLS 2015, 19, e2015.00048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marrelli, D.; Piccioni, S.A.; Carbone, L.; Petrioli, R.; Costantini, M.; Malagnino, V.; Bagnacci, G.; Rizzoli, G.; Calomino, N.; Piagnerelli, R.; et al. Posterior and Para-Aortic (D2plus) Lymphadenectomy after Neoadjuvant/Conversion Therapy for Locally Advanced/Oligometastatic Gastric Cancer. Cancers 2024, 16, 1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chinzei, K.; Hata, N.; Jolesz, F.A.; Kikinis, R. Surgical Assist Robot for the Active Navigation in the Intraoperative MRI: Hardware Design Issues. In Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2000) (Cat. No.00CH37113), Takamatsu, Japan, 31 October–5 November 2000; pp. 727–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsekos, N.V.; Khanicheh, A.; Christoforou, E.; Mavroidis, C. Magnetic resonance-compatible robotic and mechatronics systems for image-guided interventions and rehabilitation: A review study. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2007, 9, 351–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razek, A. Towards an image-guided restricted drug release in friendly implanted therapeutics. Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 2018, 82, 31401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razek, A. Image-guided surgical and pharmacotherapeutic routines as part of diligent medical treatment. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 13039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faoro, G.; Maglio, S.; Pane, S.; Iacovacci, V.; Menciassi, A. An artificial intelligence-aided robotic platform for ultrasound-guided transcarotid revascularization. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2023, 8, 2349–2356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, H.; Kwok, K.W.; Cleary, K.; Iordachita, I.I.; Çavuşoğlu, M.C.; Desai, J.P.; Fischer, G.S. State of the art and future opportunities in MRI-guided robot-assisted surgery and interventions. Proc. IEEE Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2022, 110, 968–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Padhan, J.; Tsekos, N.; Al-Ansari, A.; Abinahed, J.; Deng, Z.; Navkar, N.V. Dynamic Guidance Virtual Fixtures for Guiding Robotic Interventions: Intraoperative MRI-guided Transapical Cardiac Intervention Paradigm. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering (BIBE), Taichung, Taiwan, 7–9 November 2022; pp. 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, S.; Torrealdea, F.; Bandula, S. MR imaging-guided intervention: Evaluation of MR conditional biopsy and ablation needle tip artifacts at 3T using a balanced fast field echo sequence. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2021, 32, 1068–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, L.; Pacia, C.P.; Gong, Y.; Hu, Z.; Chien, C.Y.; Yang, L.; Gach, H.M.; Hao, Y.; Comron, H.; Huang, J.; et al. Characterization of the targeting accuracy of a neuronavigation-guided transcranial FUS system in vitro, in vivo, and in silico. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2023, 70, 1528–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navarro-Becerra, J.A.; Borden, M.A. Targeted microbubbles for drug, gene, and cell delivery in therapy and immunotherapy. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15, 1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delaney, L.J.; Isguven, S.; Eisenbrey, J.R.; Hickok, N.J.; Forsberg, F. Making waves: How ultrasound-targeted drug delivery is changing pharmaceutical approaches. Mater. Adv. 2022, 3, 3023–3040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Razek, A. Augmented therapeutic tutoring in diligent image-assisted robotic interventions. AIMS Med. Sci. 2024, 11, 210–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razek, A. Planning and performing image-assisted robotic interventions using personalized, minimally invasive, safe, and precise therapeutics. INNOSC Theranostics Pharmacol. Sci. 2024, 8, 4567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bizzarri, N.; Pedone Anchora, L.; Teodorico, E.; Certelli, C.; Galati, G.; Carbone, V.; Gallotta, V.; Naldini, A.; Costantini, B.; Querleu, D.; et al. The role of diagnostic laparoscopy in locally advanced cervical cancer staging. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2024, 50, 108645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.Y.; Wang, Y.; Xin, C.; Ji, L.Q.; Li, S.H.; Jiang, W.D.; Zhang, C.M.; Zhang, W.; Lou, Z. Laparoscopic surgery is associated with increased risk of postoperative peritoneal metastases in T4 colon cancer: A propensity score analysis. Int. J. Colorectal. Dis. 2025, 40, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Taghavi, K.; Glenisson, M.; Loiselet, K.; Fiorenza, V.; Cornet, M.; Capito, C.; Vinit, N.; Pire, A.; Sarnacki, S.; Blanc, T. Robot-assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy: Extended application in children. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2024, 50, 108627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, R.H.; Menciassi, A.; Fichtinger, G.; Fiorini, P.; Dario, P. Medical Robotics and Computer-Integrated Surgery. In Springer Handbook of Robotics; Siciliano, B., Khatib, O., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 1657–1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, Q.; Shi, Y.; Xiao, X.; Li, X.; Mo, H. Review of Human–Robot Collaboration in Robotic Surgery. Adv. Intell. Syst. 2024, 2400319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, T.; Wang, J.; Wong, S.; Razjigaev, A.; Beier, S.; Peng, S.; Do, T.N.; Song, S.; Chu, D.; Wang, C.H.; et al. A Review on the Form and Complexity of Human–Robot Interaction in the Evolution of Autonomous Surgery. Adv. Intell. Syst. 2024, 6, 2400197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schreiter, J.; Schott, D.; Schwenderling, L.; Hansen, C.; Heinrich, F.; Joeres, F. AR-Supported Supervision of Conditional Autonomous Robots: Considerations for Pedicle Screw Placement in the Future. J. Imaging 2022, 8, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williamson, T.; Song, S.E. Robotic Surgery Techniques to Improve Traditional Laparoscopy. JSLS 2022, 26, e2022.00002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivero-Moreno, Y.; Echevarria, S.; Vidal-Valderrama, C.; Pianetti, L.; Cordova-Guilarte, J.; Navarro-Gonzalez, J.; Acevedo-Rodríguez, J.; Dorado-Avila, G.; Osorio-Romero, L.; Chavez-Campos, C.; et al. Robotic Surgery: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature and Current Trends. Cureus 2023, 15, e42370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lima, V.L.; de Almeida, R.C.; Neto, T.R.; Rosa, A.A.M. Chapter 72—Robotic ophthalmologic surgery. In Handbook of Robotic Surgery; Zequi, S.C., Ren, H., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2025; pp. 701–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivero-Moreno, Y.; Rodriguez, M.; Losada-Muñoz, P.; Redden, S.; Lopez-Lezama, S.; Vidal-Gallardo, A.; Machado-Paled, D.; Cordova Guilarte, J.; Teran-Quintero, S. Autonomous Robotic Surgery: Has the Future Arrived? Cureus 2024, 16, e52243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Han, J.; Davids, J.; Ashrafian, H.; Darzi, A.; Elson, D.S.; Sodergren, M. A systematic review of robotic surgery: From supervised paradigms to fully autonomous robotic approaches. Int. J. Med. Robot. 2022, 18, e2358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, A.; Baker, T.S.; Bederson, J.B.; Rapoport, B.I. Levels of autonomy in FDA-cleared surgical robots: A systematic review. NPJ Digit. Med. 2024, 7, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haidegger, T. Autonomy for surgical robots: Concepts and paradigms. IEEE Trans. Med. Robot. Bionics 2019, 1, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burns, P.B.; Rohrich, R.J.; Chung, K.C. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2011, 128, 305–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, B.; Liu, L.; Meng, D.; Kue, C.S. Medical imaging technology: Principles and systems. INNOSC Theranostics Pharmacol. Sci. 2024, 7, 3360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraus, M.S.; Coblentz, A.C.; Deshpande, V.S.; Peeters, J.M.; Itriago-Leon, P.M.; Chavhan, G.B. State-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging sequences for pediatric body imaging. Pediatr. Radiol. 2023, 53, 1285–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sennimalai, K.; Selvaraj, M.; Kharbanda, O.P.; Kandasamy, D.; Mohaideen, K. MRI-based cephalometrics: A scoping review of current insights and future perspectives. Dentomaxillofac. Radiol. 2023, 52, 20230024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chianca, V.; Vincenzo, B.; Cuocolo, R.; Zappia, M.; Guarino, S.; Di Pietto, F.; Del Grande, F. MRI Quantitative Evaluation of Muscle Fatty Infiltration. Magnetochemistry 2023, 9, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sato, Y.; Takeuchi, T.; Fuju, A.; Takahashi, M.; Hashimoto, M.; Okawa, R.; Hayashi, R. MRI safety for leave-on powdered hair thickeners under 1.5-T and 3.0-T MRI: Measurement of deflection force, MRI artifact, and evaluation of preexamination screening. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 2023, 46, 915–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Akdogan, G.; Istanbullu, O. Analysing the effects of metallic biomaterial design and imaging sequences on MRI interpretation challenges due to image artefacts. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 2022, 45, 1163–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Germann, C.; Nanz, D.; Sutter, R. Magnetic resonance imaging around metal at 1.5 Tesla: Techniques from basic to advanced and clinical impact. Investig. Radiol. 2021, 56, 734–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Germann, C.; Falkowski, A.L.; von Deuster, C.; Nanz, D.; Sutter, R. Basic and advanced metal-artifact reduction techniques at ultra- high field 7-T magnetic resonance imaging-phantom study investigating feasibility and efficacy. Investig. Radiol. 2022, 57, 387–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Inaoka, T.; Kitamura, N.; Sugeta, M.; Nakatsuka, T.; Ishikawa, R.; Kasuya, S.; Sugiura, Y.; Nakajima, A.; Nakagawa, K.; Terada, H. Diagnostic value of advanced metal artifact reduction magnetic resonance imaging for periprosthetic joint infection. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 2022, 46, 455–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haskell, M.W.; Nielsen, J.F.; Noll, D.C. Off-resonance artifact correction for MRI: A review. NMR Biomed. 2023, 36, e4867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, X.; Zhang, Y.; Du, H.; Yu, Y. Experimental study of double cable-conduit driving device for MRI compatible biopsy robots. J. Mech. Med. Biol. 2021, 21, 2140014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Young, A.S.; Raman, S.S.; Lu, D.S.; Lee, Y.H.; Tsao, T.C.; Wu, H.H. Automatic needle tracking using Mask R-CNN for MRI-guided percutaneous interventions. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 2020, 15, 1673–1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernardes, M.C.; Moreira, P.; Lezcano, D.; Foley, L.; Tuncali, K.; Tempany, C.; Kim, J.S.; Hata, N.; Iordachita, I.; Tokuda, J. In Vivo Feasibility Study: Evaluating Autonomous Data-Driven Robotic Needle Trajectory Correction in MRI-Guided Transperineal Procedures. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2024, 9, 8975–8982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, D.; Li, G.; Patel, N.; Yan, J.; Monfaredi, R.; Cleary, K.; Iordachita, I. Remotely Actuated Needle Driving Device for MRI-Guided Percutaneous Interventions: Force and Accuracy Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2019 41st Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC), Berlin, Germany, 23–27 July 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohith, S.; Upadhya, A.R.; Navin, K.P.; Kulkarni, S.M.; Rao, M. Recent trends in piezoelectric actuators for precision motion and their applications: A review. Smart Mater. Struct. 2020, 30, 013002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, X.; Yang, J.; Wu, J.; Xin, X.; Li, Z.; Yuan, X.; Shen, X.; Dong, S. Piezoelectric actuators and motors: Materials, designs, and applications. Adv. Mater. Technol. 2020, 5, 1900716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiao, G.; Li, H.; Lu, X.; Wen, J.; Cheng, T. Piezoelectric stick-slip actuators with flexure hinge mechanisms: A review. J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 2022, 33, 1879–1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Gao, X.; Jin, H.; Ren, K.; Guo, J.; Qiao, L.; Qiu, C.; Chen, W.; He, Y.; Dong, S.; et al. Miniaturized electromechanical devices with multi-vibration modes achieved by orderly stacked structure with piezoelectric strain units. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 6567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, D.K.; Fan, P.Q.; Yuan, T.; Wang, Y.S. A novel hybrid mode linear ultrasonic motor with double driving feet. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 2022, 93, 025003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, Z.; Guo, Z.; Han, H.; Su, Z.; Sun, H. Design and characteristic analysis of multi-degree-of-freedom ultrasonic motor based on spherical stator. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 2022, 93, 025004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, S.; Zhou, S.; Zhang, X.; Xu, P.; Zhang, Z.; Ren, L. Bionic stepping motors driven by piezoelectric materials. J. Bionic. Eng. 2023, 20, 858–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernandez, C.; Bernard, Y.; Razek, A. Design and manufacturing of a piezoelectric traveling-wave pumping device. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 2013, 60, 1949–1956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, S.; Liu, Y.; Deng, J.; Gao, X.; Li, J.; Wang, W.; Xun, M.; Ma, X.; Chang, Q.; Liu, J.; et al. Piezo robotic hand for motion manipulation from micro to macro. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Z.; Li, X.; Tang, J.; Huang, H.; Zhao, H.; Cheng, Y.; Liu, S.; Li, C.; Xiong, M. A bionic stick-slip piezo-driven positioning platform designed by imitating the structure and movement of the crab. J. Bionic. Eng. 2023, 20, 2590–2600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, F.; Sui, F.; Liu, A.; Qi, Q.; Zhang, M.; Song, B.; Guo, Z.; Lu, S.C.Y.; Nee, A.Y.C. Digital twin-driven product design framework. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 3935–3953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grieves, M.; Vickers, J. Digital twin: Mitigating unpredictable, undesirable emergent behavior in complex systems. In Trans-Disciplinary Perspectives on Complex Systems; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 85–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuller, A.; Fan, Z.; Day, C.; Barlow, C. Digital twin: Enabling technologies, challenges and open research. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 108952–108971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, T.; He, X.; Li, Z. Digital twin in healthcare: Recent updates and challenges. Digit. Health 2023, 9, 20552076221149651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sun, T.; He, X.; Song, X.; Shu, L.; Li, Z. The digital twin in medicine: A key to the future of healthcare? Front. Med. 2022, 9, 907066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Benedictis, A.; Mazzocca, N.; Somma, A.; Strigaroet, C. Digital twins in healthcare: An architectural proposal and its application in a social distancing case study. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inform. 2022, 27, 5143–5154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haleem, A.; Javaid, M.; Singh, R.P.; Suman, R. Exploring the revolution in healthcare systems through the applications of digital twin technology. Biomed. Technol. 2023, 4, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohamed, N.; Al-Jaroodi, J.; Jawhar, I.; Kesserwan, N. Leveraging digital twins for healthcare systems engineering. IEEE Access 2023, 11, 69841–69853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Jaroodi, J.; Mohamed, N. Enhancing the Efficiency of Healthcare Facilities Management with Digital Twins. In Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Smart Applications, Communications and Networking (SmartNets), Harrisonburg, VA, USA, 28–30 May 2024; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ricci, A.; Croatti, A.; Montagna, S. Pervasive and connected digital twins-a vision for digital health. IEEE Internet Comput. 2022, 26, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okegbile, S.D.; Cai, J. Edge-Assisted Human-to-Virtual Twin Connectivity Scheme for Human Digital Twin Frameworks. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE 95th Vehicular Technology Conference: (VTC2022-Spring), Helsinki, Finland, 19–22 June 2022; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, C.; Mumu, A.A.; Ali, M.F.; Sarker, S.K.; Mmuyeen, S.; Das, S.K.; Das, P.; Hasan, M.; Tasneem, Z.; Islam, M.; et al. Toward IoRT collaborative digital twin technology enabled future surgical sector: Technical innovations, opportunities and challenges. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 129079–129104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carbonaro, A.; Marfoglia, A.; Nardini, F.; Mellone, S. CONNECTED: Leveraging digital twins and personal knowledge graphs in healthcare digitalization. Front. Digit. Health 2023, 5, 1322428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wickramasinghe, N.; Ulapane, N.; Sloane, E.B.; Gehlot, V. Digital Twins for More Precise and Personalized Treatment. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2024, 310, 229–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razek, A. Monitoring complexity in clean energy systems applications. Clean Energy Sustain. 2024, 2, 10007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maxwell, J.C., VIII. A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 1865, 155, 459–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunes, A.S.; Chadebec, O.; Kuo-Peng, P.; Dular, P.; Meunier, G. A Coupling between the Facet Finite Element and Reluctance Network Methods in 3-D. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2017, 53, 2723576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henrotte, F.; Geuzaine, C. Electromagnetic forces and their finite element computation. Int. J. Numer. Model. 2024, 37, e3290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antunes, O.J.; Bastos, J.P.A.; Sadowski, N.; Razek, A.; Santandrea, L.; Bouillault, F.; Rapetti, F. Comparison between nonconforming movement methods. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2006, 42, 599–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, Z.; Razek, A. Comparison of some 3D eddy current formulations in dual systems. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2000, 36, 751–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gürbüz, I.T.; Martin, F.; Rasilo, P.; Billah, M.M.; Belahcen, A. A new methodology for incorporating the cutting deterioration of electrical sheets into electromagnetic finite-element simulation. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2024, 593, 171843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- da Silva, I.P.C.; de Miranda, R.A.; Sadowski, N.; Batistela, N.J.; Bernard, L.; Bastos, J.P. Modeling of Electrical Machines Hysteresis Losses under Mechanical Stresses. J. Microw. Optoelectron. Electromagn. Appl. 2024, 23, e2024283838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urdaneta-Calzadilla, A.; Chadebec, O.; Galopin, N.; Niyonzima, I.; Meunier, G.; Bannwarth, B. Modeling of Magnetoelectric Effects in Composite Structures by FEM–BEM Coupling. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2023, 59, 3235211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pohlmann, A.; Lessmann, M.; Finocchiaro, T.; Schmitz-Rode, T.; Hameyer, K. Numerical Computation Can Save Life: FEM Simulations for the Development of Artificial Hearts. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2011, 47, 1166–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, B.; Li, H.; Li, B. An internal ballistic model of electromagnetic railgun based on PFN coupled with multi-physical field and experimental validation. Def. Technol. 2024, 32, 254–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razek, A. Coupled Models in Electromagnetic and Energy Conversion Systems from Smart Theories Paradigm to That of Complex Events: A Review. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kudela, J.; Matousek, R. Recent advances and applications of surrogate models for finite element method computations: A review. Soft. Comput. 2022, 26, 13709–13733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, M.; Zhao, X.; Dhimish, M.; Qiu, W.; Niu, S. A Review of Data-driven Surrogate Models for Design Optimization of Electric Motors. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2024, 10, 8413–84311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabriel, S.; Lau, R.W.; Gabriel, C. The dielectric properties of biological tissues: II. Measurements in the frequency range 10 Hz to 20 GHz. Phys. Med. Biol. 1996, 41, 2251–2269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barchanski, A.; Steiner, T.; De Gersem, H.; Clemens, M.; Weiland, T. Local grid refinement for low-frequency current computations in 3-D human anatomy models. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2006, 42, 1371–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasgall, P.A.; Neufeld, E. IT’IS Database for Thermal and Electromagnetic Parameters of Biological Tissues, Version 4.1. 2022. Available online: https://itis.swiss/virtual-population/tissue-properties/database/dielectric-properties (accessed on 22 February 2022).
- Makarov, S.N.; Noetscher, G.M.; Yanamadala, J.; Piazza, M.W.; Louie, S.; Prokop, A.; Nazarian, A.; Nummenmaa, A. Virtual Human Models for Electromagnetic Studies and Their Applications. IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2017, 10, 95–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, L.R.; Zhadobov, M.; Chahat, N.; Sauleau, R. Electromagnetic dosimetry for adult and child models within a car: Multi-exposure scenarios. Int. J. Microw. Wirel. Technol. 2011, 3, 707–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gjonaj, E.; Bartsch, M.; Clemens, M.; Schupp, S.; Weiland, T. High-resolution human anatomy models for advanced electromagnetic field computations. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2002, 38, 357–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razek, A. Biological and Medical Disturbances Due to Exposure to Fields Emitted by Electromagnetic Energy Devices—A Review. Energies 2022, 15, 4455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sears, V.A.; Morris, J.M. Establishing a point-of-care virtual planning and 3D printing program. Semin. Plast. Surg. 2022, 36, 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elkefi, S.; Asan, O. Digital twins for managing health care systems: Rapid literature review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2022, 24, e37641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cellina, M.; Cè, M.; Alì, M.; Irmici, G.; Ibba, S.; Caloro, E.; Fazzini, D.; Oliva, G.; Papa, S. Digital Twins: The New Frontier for Personalized Medicine? Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 7940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kangasmaa, O.; Laakso, I.; Schmid, G. Estimating Human Fat and Muscle Conductivity From 100 Hz to 1 MHz Using Measurements and Modelling. Bioelectromagnetics 2025, 46, e22541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Humphrey, J.D. Biological soft tissues. In Springer Handbook of Experimental Solid Mechanics; Sharpe, W., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kallin, S. Deformation of Human Soft Tissues: Experimental and Numerical Aspects. Licentiate Thesis, Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ, Department of Rehabilitation, Jönköping, Sweden, 2019. Available online: https://hj.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1344790/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2025).
- Al-Dirini, R.M.A.; Reed, M.P.; Hu, J.W.; Thewlis, D. Development and validation of a high anatomical fidelity FE model for the buttock and thigh of a seated individual. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2016, 44, 2805–2816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fung, Y.C. Biomechanics: Mechanical Properties of Living Tissues, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA; Berlin, Germany, 1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henninger, H.B.; Reese, S.P.; Anderson, A.E.; Weiss, J.A. Validation of computational models in biomechanics. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. H 2010, 224, 801–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, Y. Human digital twin, the development and impact on design. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 2023, 23, 060819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burattini, S.; Montagna, S.; Croatti, A.; Gentili, N.; Ricci, A.; Leonardi, L.; Pandolfini, S.; Tosi, S. An Ecosystem of Digital Twins for Operating Room Management. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE 36th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS), L’Aquila, Italy, 22–24 June 2023; pp. 770–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagmann, K.; Hellings-Kuß, A.; Klodmann, J.; Richter, R.; Stulp, F.; Leidner, D. A digital twin approach for contextual assistance for surgeons during surgical robotics training. Front. Robot. AI 2021, 8, 735566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katsoulakis, E.; Wang, Q.; Wu, H.; Shahriyari, L.; Fletcher, R.; Liu, J.; Achenie, L.; Liu, H.; Jackson, P.; Xiao, Y.; et al. Digital twins for health: A scoping review. NPJ Digit. Med. 2024, 7, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cusumano, D.; Boldrini, L.; Dhont, J.; Fiorino, C.; Green, O.; Güngör, G.; Jornet, N.; Klüter, S.; Landry, G.; Mattiucci, G.C.; et al. Artificial intelligence in magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy: Medical and physical considerations on state of art and future perspectives. Phys. Med. 2021, 85, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seetohul, J.; Shafiee, M.; Sirlantzis, K. Augmented reality (AR) for surgical robotic and autonomous systems: State of the art, challenges, and solutions. Sensors 2023, 23, 6202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Avrumova, F.; Lebl, D.R. Augmented reality for minimally invasive spinal surgery. Front. Surg. 2023, 9, 1086988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Long, Y.; Cao, J.; Deguet, A.; Taylor, R.H.; Dou, Q. Integrating Artificial Intelligence and Augmented Reality in Robotic Surgery: An Initial dVRK Study Using a Surgical Education Scenario. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Medical Robotics (ISMR), Atlanta, GA, USA, 13–15 April 2022; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fu, J.; Rota, A.; Li, S.; Zhao, J.; Liu, Q.; Iovene, E.; Ferrigno, G.; De Momi, E. Recent Advancements in Augmented Reality for Robotic Applications: A Survey. Actuators 2023, 12, 323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qian, L.; Wu, J.Y.; DiMaio, S.P.; Navab, N.; Kazanzides, P. A review of augmented reality in robotic-assisted surgery. IEEE Trans. Med. Robot. Bionics 2020, 2, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kukushkin, K.; Ryabov, Y.; Borovkov, A. Digital twins: A systematic literature review based on data analysis and topic modeling. Data 2022, 7, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armeni, P.; Polat, I.; De Rossi, L.M.; Diaferia, L.; Meregalli, S.; Gatti, A. Digital twins in healthcare: Is it the beginning of a new era of evidence-based medicine? A critical review. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tortorici, S.; Difalco, P.; Caradonna, L.; Tetè, S. Traditional endodontic surgery versus modern technique: A 5-year controlled clinical trial. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2014, 25, 804–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- You, C.; Lu, H.; Zhao, J.; Qin, B.; Liu, W. The Comparison Between Traditional Versus 3D Printing Combined with Computer Navigation Technique in the Management of Orbital Blowout Fractures. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2025, 36, 201–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bates, H.W. Contributions to an insect fauna of the amazon valley. Lepidoptera: Heliconidae. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 1862, 23, 495–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razek, A. Matching of an observed event and its virtual model in relation to smart theories, coupled models and supervision of complex procedures—A review. Comptes Rendus Phys. 2024, 25, 141–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razek, A. Strategies for managing models regarding environmental confidence and complexity involved in intelligent control of energy systems—A review. Adv. Environ. Energies 2023, 2, aee020104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lebensztajn, L.; Marretto, C.A.R.; Caldora Costa, M.; Coulomb, J.L. Kriging: A useful tool for electromagnetic device optimization. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2004, 40, 1196–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaignaire, R.; Scorretti, R.; Sabariego, R.V.; Geuzaine, C. Stochastic uncertainty quantification of eddy currents in the human body by polynomial chaos decomposition. IEEE Trans. Magn. 2012, 48, 451–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheng, B.; Wang, Z.; Qiao, Y.; Xie, S.Q.; Tao, J.; Duan, C. Detecting latent topics and trends of digital twins in healthcare: A structural topic model-based systematic review. Digit. Health 2023, 12, 20552076231203672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armeni, P.; Polat, I.; Maria De Rossi, L.; Diaferia, L.; Visioli, G.; Meregalli, S.; Gatti, A. Perspective Chapter: Digital Twins for Health–Opportunities, Barriers and a Path Forward. In Digital Twin Technology—Fundamentals and Applications; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Den Boer, J.A.; Bourland, J.D.; Nyenhuis, J.A.; Ham, C.L.; Engels, J.M.; Hebrank, F.X.; Frese, G.; Schaefer, D.J. Comparison of the threshold for peripheral nerve stimulation during gradient switching in whole body MR systems. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2002, 15, 520–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davids, M.; Guerin, B.; Klein, V.; Wald, L.L. Optimization of MRI Gradient Coils with Explicit Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Constraints. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 2021, 40, 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thylur, D.S.; Jacobs, R.E.; Go, J.L.; Toga, A.W.; Niparko, J.K. Ultra-High-Field Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Human Inner Ear at 11.7 Tesla. Otol. Neurotol. 2017, 38, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crozier, S.; Liu, F. Numerical evaluation of the fields induced by body motion in or near high-field MRI scanners. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 2005, 87, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Osch, M.J.P.; Webb, A.G. Safety of Ultra-High Field MRI: What are the Specific Risks? Curr. Radiol. Rep. 2014, 2, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouisset, N.; Laakso, I. Induced electric fields in MRI settings and electric vestibular stimulations: Same vestibular effects? Exp. Brain Res. 2024, 242, 2493–2507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mian, O.S.; Li, Y.; Antunes, A.; Glover, P.M.; Day, B.L. On the Vertigo Due to Static Magnetic Fields. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e78748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boegle, R.; Dieterich, M.; Kirsch, V. Comment on: Modulatory Effects of Magnetic Vestibular Stimulation on Resting-State Networks Can be Explained by Subject-Specific Orientation of Inner Ear Anatomy in the MR Static Magnetic Field. J. Exp. Neurol. 2020, 1, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alemzadeh, H.; Raman, J.; Leveson, N.; Kalbarczyk, Z.; Iyer, R.K. Adverse Events in Robotic Surgery: A Retrospective Study of 14 Years of FDA Data. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0151470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- IEC 80601-2-77; Medical Electrical Equipment–Part 2-77: Particular Requirements for the Basic Safety and Essential Performance of Robotically Assisted Surgical Equipment. Edition 1.0 2023-11. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023. Available online: https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/105816/bbc0798be8804b099e40cde2ca1988f6/IEC-80601-2-77-2019-AMD1-2023.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2025).
- Dong, Z.; Wang, X.; Fang, G.; He, Z.; Ho, J.D.L.; Cheung, C.L.; Tang, W.L.; Xie, X.; Liang, L.; Chang, H.C.; et al. Shape Tracking and Feedback Control of Cardiac Catheter Using MRI-Guided Robotic Platform-Validation with Pulmonary Vein Isolation Simulator in MRI. IEEE Trans. Robot. 2022, 38, 2781–2798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Patel, N.A.; Melzer, A.; Sharma, K.; Iordachita, I.; Cleary, K. MRI-guided lumbar spinal injections with body-mounted robotic system: Cadaver studies. Minim. Invasive Ther. Allied Technol. 2022, 31, 297–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, N.; Gassert, R.; Riener, R. Mutual interferences and design principles for mechatronic devices in magnetic resonance imaging. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 2011, 6, 473–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, X.; Wu, S.; Wang, X.; Wang, Z.; Zhu, Q.; Sun, J.; Huang, P.; Wang, X.; Huang, W.; Lu, Q. Review on piezoelectric actuators: Materials, classifications, applications, and recent trends. Front. Mech. Eng. 2024, 19, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Zhang, G.; Zhao, B.; Xie, D.; Du, H.; Duan, X.; Hu, Y.; Zhang, L. Advances of surgical robotics: Image-guided classification and application. Natl. Sci. Rev. 2024, 11, nwae186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biswas, P.; Sikander, S.; Kulkarni, P. Recent advances in robot-assisted surgical systems. Biomed. Eng. Adv. 2023, 6, 100109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binte Gazali, N.A.; Bakar, R.A.; Tan, C.L.C.; Bo, J.; Lee, S.H.E.; Ho, H.P.; Lim, S.Y.; Cheong, W.K.; Liaw, S.C.J.; Ooi, C.C. Comparing conventional abdominal ultrasound scanning versus a ROBotic assisted UltraSonography sysTem (ROBUST). WFUMB Ultrasound Open 2024, 2, 100040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okuzaki, K.; Koizumi, N.; Yoshinaka, K.; Nishiyama, Y.; Zhou, J.; Tsumura, R. Rib region detection for scanning path planning for fully automated robotic abdominal ultrasonography. Int. J. CARS 2024, 19, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kapuria, S.; Bonyun, J.; Kulkarni, Y.; Ikoma, N.; Chinchali, S.; Alambeigi, F. Robot-Enabled Machine Learning-Based Diagnosis of Gastric Cancer Polyps Using Partial Surface Tactile Imaging. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2024), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 14–18 October 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, J.; Li, J.; Li, Y.; Li, B.; Leng, Y.; Rong, Y.; Fu, C. Autonomous Trajectory Planning for Ultrasound-Guided Real-Time Tracking of Suspicious Breast Tumor Targets. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2024, 21, 2478–2493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- von Haxthausen, F.; Böttger, S.; Wulff, D.; Hagenah, J.; García-Vázquez, V.; Ipsen, S. Medical Robotics for Ultrasound Imaging: Current Systems and Future Trends. Curr. Robot. Rep. 2021, 2, 55–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonnet, B.; de Baère, T.; Beunon, P.; Feddal, A.; Tselikas, L.; Deschamps, F. Robotic-assisted CT-guided percutaneous thermal ablation of abdominal tumors: An analysis of 41 patients. Diagn. Interv. Imaging 2024, 105, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, J.; Xu, Y.; Shen, N.; Feng, L.; Ran, Z.; Deng, Z. A practical pretreatment planning method of multiple puncturing for thermal ablation surgery. Biocybern. Biomed. Eng. 2020, 40, 1469–1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miaskowski, A.; Gas, P. Numerical Estimation of SAR and Temperature Distributions inside Differently Shaped Female Breast Tumors during Radio-Frequency Ablation. Materials 2023, 16, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gas, P.; Miaskowski, A. Influence of the Radiofrequency Applicators Arrangement on the Sizes of Ablative Zones inside Hepatic Tumor. Arch. Electr. Eng. 2024, 73, 557–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Type of Intervention | MI | Cut Trace | Healing Time | Visualization | Tool Control | Surgical Dexterity | Staff Ease and Ergonomics |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Open | No | Large | Elongated | Directly | Hand | Moderate | Difficult |
Laparoscopic | Yes | Small | Short | Laparoscope | Hand | Moderate | Moderate |
Robotic | Yes | Small | Short | Pre-images + Computer | Robot | Good | Good |
Image-guided | Yes | Small | Short | Scanner | Robot | Accurate | Comfortable |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Razek, A. From Open, Laparoscopic, or Computerized Surgical Interventions to the Prospects of Image-Guided Involvement. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 4826. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15094826
Razek A. From Open, Laparoscopic, or Computerized Surgical Interventions to the Prospects of Image-Guided Involvement. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(9):4826. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15094826
Chicago/Turabian StyleRazek, Adel. 2025. "From Open, Laparoscopic, or Computerized Surgical Interventions to the Prospects of Image-Guided Involvement" Applied Sciences 15, no. 9: 4826. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15094826
APA StyleRazek, A. (2025). From Open, Laparoscopic, or Computerized Surgical Interventions to the Prospects of Image-Guided Involvement. Applied Sciences, 15(9), 4826. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15094826