Next Article in Journal
The Evolution of Inguinal Hernia Repair from the Langenbeck–Gerdy Subcutaneous Technique to Durham and Subsequent Dissection Procedures: A Historical Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Stratified Procedural Risk Assessment in Colorectal Surgery: A Comparative Analysis of Statistical and Machine Learning Approaches Using Combined Surgical Approach and Operative Duration Categories
Previous Article in Journal
Hospital Profitability of Robot-Assisted Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery in Japan Under the National Fee Schedule: A Surgical Program Model with Required-Cut and Isoprofit Maps
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Image-Guided Autonomous Robotic Surgery in the Context of Therapies Managed by Intelligent Digital Technologies: A Narrative Review

Group of Electrical Engineering–Paris (GeePs), CNRS, University of Paris-Saclay and Sorbonne University, F91190 Gif sur Yvette, France
Surgeries 2026, 7(1), 26; https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries7010026
Submission received: 29 January 2026 / Revised: 11 February 2026 / Accepted: 13 February 2026 / Published: 16 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Application of Artificial Intelligence in Surgical Procedures)

Abstract

This narrative review aims to highlight and analyze the supervision of precision robotic surgical interventions. These are autonomous, closed-loop procedures, assisted by images and managed by intelligent digital tools. These administered procedures are designed to be safe and reliable, adhering to the principles of minimal invasiveness, precise positioning, and non-toxicity. Thus, a precision intervention uses non-ionizing imaging-assisted robotics, controlled by a precise positioning device, forming an autonomous procedure augmented by artificial intelligence tools and supervised by digital twins. This intelligent digital management procedure allows staff to plan, train, predict, and execute interventions under human supervision. Patient safety and staff efficiency are linked to non-ionizing imaging, minimal invasiveness through image guidance, and strict delimitation of the intervention zone through precise positioning. This study includes, successively, sections covering an introduction, therapeutic and surgical interventions, imaging strategies integrating diagnostic and assistance functions, intelligent digital tools including digital twins and artificial intelligence, image-guided procedures including autonomous and precision robotic surgical interventions increased by machine learning, as well as augmented healthcare monitoring, and a discussion and conclusions of the review. All topics addressed in this analysis are supported by examples from the literature.

1. Introduction

Throughout human history, well-being, including safety, healthcare, and comfort, has been a constant concern. In previous eras, health was a major issue, with protocols successively involving external observation, diagnosis, assistance and drug treatments, and, as a last resort, internal interventions. All these medical tasks relied on the natural senses—sight, touch, and hearing—assisted by artificial instruments that were refined over time [1]. Medications were administered through external orifices of the body or through invasive skin incisions, and surgical procedures were performed through large, invasive incisions. These invasive techniques were necessary to access, see, and operate properly, but they also presented a certain risk in maintaining perfect hygiene during the operation and in ensuring proper suturing.
The aforementioned medical therapeutics and open surgical interventions are still performed in several entirely appropriate situations, but with considerably improved hygiene conditions and sophisticated instruments that assist natural human observations.
It is important that all healthcare procedures be performed reliably and safely, which implies a high level of precision, non-toxic conditions, and a non-invasive or minimally invasive approach [2]. These characteristics are linked to multidisciplinary technology. Thanks to recent technological advances in the fields of intelligent digital tools, smart materials, and high-performance imaging strategies, medical treatments and interventions can undergo significant innovations. Indeed, observation, diagnosis, assistance, and drug treatments can be performed using smart wearable detection devices [3] and assistance devices [4,5], as well as imaging scanners. Similarly, surgical interventions and drug administration can utilize computer-assisted or image-guided robotic techniques, supervised by intelligent digital tools [6].
In the field of imaging, different techniques, based on distinct physical principles, allow for the design of different types of scanners, each adapted to a specific use. These different types of scanners may present compatibility problems related to their operating principle. They can be used for diagnosis, learning, and disease classification [7,8], as well as to assist in interventions [2,6]. In the last case, given the interventional duration, only scanners using non-ionizing technologies (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound) are permitted for obvious safety reasons [6].
Among the promising and effective digital tools recently developed, three main technologies stand out: digital twins (DTs), artificial intelligence (AI), and extended reality (XR). A DT is a dynamic and faithful virtual replica of a real-world object [9,10,11,12]. AI, on the other hand, functions like a reasoning machine, processing enormous amounts of data to extract knowledge, predict future situations, and systematize complex decisions [13]. It includes specialized branches such as machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), robotics, and many more [14,15,16,17]. XR (including virtual, augmented and mixed realities: VR, AR and MR) facilitates immersion in human interaction [18,19,20]. These tools can be used individually or in combination, paving the way for a new era of smart and adaptive procedures. For example, in the medical field, staff can prepare for and train and/or practice an AI-augmented complex autonomous procedure via DTs, generating new data that continuously enhances the procedure.
As abovementioned surgical and embedded drug administration interventions can utilize different interventional procedures. These can use open, laparoscopic, robotized laparoscopic, computer-assisted or image-assisted robotic procedures. For approaches with a high level of positioning, precision, and that are minimally invasive, robotized procedures seem more reliable. In addition, image-guided strategies using instantaneous imaging to aid immediate positioning perform best. The resulting autonomous image-assisted robotic procedure represents a high-precision intervention [6]. The integration of the digital tools mentioned earlier enhance the performance of such precision interventions.
Medical observation, assistance and interventions are related to detecting sensors and robotic actuations. The performance of sensors and actuators is related to their technology and material. Precision therapeutics need generally smart material sensing and piezoelectric actuating devices [21].
Thanks to the highlights mentioned above, various healthcare problems can be monitored by DTs applied to complex autonomous procedures, enhanced by AI, ML and/or XR, thereby improving overall patient well-being and strengthening staff skills. This includes, for example, in the context of monitoring precision interventions and wearable assistance and detection strategies [22].
This study aims to analyze and highlight the supervision of safe and reliable robotic surgical interventions involving autonomous image-assisted procedures associated with intelligent digital tools. It is important to note that this narrative review addresses multidisciplinary topics, including healthcare, surgical procedures, imaging technologies, robotics, actuation, DTs, AI, and electromagnetic interference, as well as clinical, technical, and knowledge transfer challenges. As a narrative review, it does not focus primarily on any of these topics. Therefore, more detailed information can be found in the specific references reviewed.
This narrative review specifically examines the following:
  • Medical therapeutics and surgical interventions, including wearable sensing and assistive tools and robotic interventional procedures.
  • Imaging strategies, including diagnostic functions, assistive duties, and security and compatibility issues.
  • Smart digital tools, comprising artificial intelligence implements and digital twins’ mechanisms.
  • Image-assisted procedures, involving autonomous and precision robotic surgical interventions, the integration of AI and ML practices, and robotic actuation.
  • Extended monitoring in healthcare involvements and related magnitudes for staff-supplemented tasks and patient well-being enhancement, as well as the role of AI and XR in the managing of MRI-guided autonomous interventions.
  • A supporting discussion and conclusions.

2. Therapeutics and Surgical Interventions

As mentioned previously, in current medicine practices, observation for diagnostic purposes, medical assistance, and surgical interventions are essential tasks in healthcare. These tasks rely on wearable detection and supporting devices, as well as robotic interventional procedures. These tools and procedures will be highlighted and analyzed in this section.
For more information on the expressions connection related to the sections of the main text, please refer to Figure 1.

2.1. Wearable Sensing and Assistive Tools

Wearable treatment mechanisms are contiguous or incorporated healthcare tissue that perform sensing or assistive tasks. They can perform compliant or directed functions when employed in skins or tissues and can perform autonomously or remotely controlled. Generally, they operate continuously in real-time, permitting incessant supervision of health data, which allows patients to accomplish their everyday reaching tasks while staying supervised.
Sensing tasks can employ skin pressure non-invasive sensors or embedded minimally invasive biosensors or antennas. Under these conditions, sensing tasks, combined with smart materials and AI, enable rapid and accurate health detections and consistent personalized therapies [2]. For portable pressure sensors using smart materials such as piezoelectric materials, which offer high sensitivity and linear response, different reliability requirements can be met. For instance, accurate wrist pulse measurement [23], Parkinson’s shaking assessment [24] and generally in healthcare detections [25,26,27], diagnostics [28,29], supervising [30,31,32] and managing [33,34]. In the case of biosensors or antennas, different detections, monitoring strategies and assessments could be found in [35,36,37,38,39].
Wearable assistive tools are used for the stimulation or support of different body organs. Generally, they use robotic procedures involving either self-actuated mini-robots [40,41,42,43,44,45] or are external joint actuated [46,47,48,49] (this aspect will be detailed in Section 5.4). Different assistive tasks could be found in, for example, assisting sensorimotor deficits [3,4,5], heart stimulation tools [50], implanted drug release [51], implanted supervision of the spinal cord [52] and regulated blood flow [53].

2.2. Robotic Interventional Procedures

The minimally invasive approach mentioned previously has updated traditional open surgery through laparoscopy [54,55]. This technique uses small incisions to insert a miniature camera and instrument armed with a light source, thus providing better visualization. The laparoscopic procedure is connected to reduced postoperative pain and faster healing, as well as improved incision esthetics and a abridged risk of complications, thereby shortening hospital stays [56,57]. Nevertheless, such procedures engaging lengthened tools, in addition to 2D visualizing displays, may cause staff operative ergonomic hazards [54,58] and possible enlarged postoperative nuisance [59]. A robotized form of this procedure can temper such hazards via different subsidiary tasks [60]. Consequently, only a fully robotized minimally invasive procedure can avoid all the mentioned limitations.
Robotic surgery uses processed medical images, enabling computers to position, move, and operate the interventional instrument. It offers improved surgical control and enhanced ergonomics for staff through 3D vision, greater freedom of movement thanks to robotics, and being a less invasive procedure [61,62,63]. It is characterized by dynamic interactions between machines, increased precision, and autonomous operation [64,65,66], in addition to staff supervision [67,68,69].
As stated earlier, a reliable autonomous intervention, involving a smart substitute of 3D visual skill, can be valuably reached through a coherent image-guided robotic procedure [70]. Indeed, this procedure looks to possess a clear advantage compared to other minimally invasive procedures, while also allowing for a significant improvement in the surgeon’s skills and greater ease throughout the procedure [2,6,71,72]. In addition, such assisted procedures are well adapted to intricate surgeries [73,74,75,76] or restricted drug releases [77,78,79]; both impose activities in a constrained zone to safeguard healthy tissues surrounding the troubled area.
In conclusion, robotic surgery eliminates the invasive nature of open surgery and improves the visualization, precision, and ergonomics of laparoscopy. Compared to computer-assisted robotic surgery, image-assisted robotic surgery offers the significant advantage of a reliable real-time imaging tool that allows for immediate positioning.
It should be noted that the robot is a platform that can be used, in addition to computer-assisted or image-assisted surgeries, to perform open surgery (e.g., orthopedic robots), and is more commonly employed to enhance laparoscopic surgery in its robotized version mentioned above (robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery). Moreover, in image-assisted surgeries, the image guidance is different according to surgical types. For example, neurosurgical or orthopedic surgeries highly rely on the registration of preoperative MRI images with intraoperative navigation; abdominal soft-tissue surgeries depend more on intraoperative real-time imaging (such as ultrasound or MRI) to account for tissue deformation and displacement. Such differences directly influence the design and selection of robotic systems, imaging devices, and algorithms.

3. Imaging Strategies

Current healthcare practices need require advanced imaging technologies that allow for reliable and safe observation of the inside of the skin. These technologies are characterized by high resolution, high speed, ease of use, non-invasiveness, and low cost. Each imaging technique is associated with a specific physical domain, giving it particular properties. Therefore, the use of an imaging system has advantages and limitations depending on the application and the tissue being imaged. Medical imaging applications primarily involve diagnosis, treatment using images [7,8], and interventional guidance [2,6]. The imaged body parts include soft-tissue organs, bones, blood vessels, cavities, and their mixtures.
The main categories of imaging are radiography (X-ray), computed tomography (CT), nuclear medicine imaging, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound. The first three are ionizing, while the latter two are non-ionizing. These five categories can be used for short-term specific applications for diagnostic purposes, while only the two non-ionizing techniques can be used for longer periods like interventional assistance. The latterly mentioned techniques will be further explored in Section 5.1.

4. Smart Digital Tools

In the context of monitoring autonomous and precision robotic procedures involving complex and interdependent components, two types of digital tools are particularly well-suited to managing these complexities: DTs [9,10,11,12] and AI [13,14,15,16,17]. DTs help reduce uncertainties and external risks within complex systems [9]. AI, on the other hand, enables automated and autonomous robotic decision-making through data exploitation, while its dedicated branch, machine learning (ML), allows for data analysis within these autonomous procedures. Indeed, AI leverages data to arrive at informed decisions, while ML processes data to learn and be further enriched.

4.1. Artificial Intelligence Tools

AI is principally a vast arrangement of implements that enable computers to function smartly, simulating human intelligence and operating automatically, for example, in autonomous robotic procedures [16]. It exploits data to reach well-informed decisions and can become further operational as it collects more data [14,15]. ML is a vital stem within the wide field of AI. Its main goal is to construct and polish algorithms that become more reliable and skillful as they act together with data over the course of time. It allows computers to analyze data, and fashion learnt decisions or predictions, without demanding specific programming for such duties [80]. It explicitly aims to reduce human interference as far as possible, systematizing the learning practice from data. In numerous recent appliances, AI and ML are expended together to fully leverage the potential of both approaches [81]. Numerous general applications of AI tools in medicine could be found, for example, in hospital management [15], medical image classification [82], hand surgery [83], diagnostics [84], image analysis [85], monitoring and clinical trials [86], and ophthalmology [87,88,89].

4.2. Digital Twins

As previously mentioned, DTs help reduce uncertainties and external risks within complex systems. A DT comprises two matched components: a physical component and its virtual replica, along with near-instantaneous bidirectional information exchange between them. This matched pair enables intrinsic self-regulation, and the physical component transmits processed sensor information to the virtual component, while the latter communicates control the instructions to the physical component. This adjustment assistance enables the aforementioned reductions in the control of the complex system. Regarding the precise functioning of the matching within the DT components, the exchanged data from the physical system is adjusted using external information, such as data from the Internet of Things (IoT), as well as the system’s learned operating history. The adjusted result, after training through data analysis, is then transmitted to the virtual component. The inherent complexity of the interaction between the components of the physical system is reflected in its virtual replica by a complex coupled model. Since DT matching is supposed to be swift, this speed is incompatible with the computation time of the coupled model. Therefore, such an inclusive model must be compacted to reduce computation time while maintaining a realistic representation of the physical system. Such reduction can be achieved by using model order reduction, surrogate models, and machine learning replacement models (see Section 7.4).
For health applications, the DT tool has been increasingly initiated in the medical domain. For example, different assessments involving therapeutics, management and supervision related to nursing, healthcare and sustained disturbance could be found in [11,90,91,92,93,94]. DT supervision is commonly practiced in personalized healthcare, which involves therapeutics or interventional procedures. In addition, DTs can be used in staff training, task planning, and prediction through the engagement of physical and virtual phantoms, as well as in actual interventions with autonomous procedures in staff management [95,96,97,98].
The specific form of DTs in the surgical context can be a model of the patient’s organ, a simulation system of the surgical robot, or a virtual mapping of the entire surgical environment. The DT studied in the surgical context of this narrative review corresponds to the complete surgical environment related to the autonomous robotic procedure described in the next section.

5. Image-Assisted Interventional Procedures

As mentioned above, a secure, self-sufficient, minimally invasive intervention containing accurate positioning and visual ability can be beneficially attained by consistent robotic procedure helped by imaging scanners. Such a system can be augmented through the use of smart digital tools for its supervision and smart material devices for actuation that are necessary for the procedure to function.

5.1. Autonomous and Precise Robotic Surgical Interventions

The safety in an image-assisted robotic intervention is connected to two influences related to the positioning exactness and the involved imaging technology used for a relatively important interventional duration. The precision of positioning ensures a constricted action in the concerned tissue zone and can be realized via a dedicated actuation tool, while only non-ionizing imaging technology can be practiced according to the imaging interventional duration. It is worth noting that the body’s concerned tissue is placed inside the scanner scaffold. Therefore, MRI and ultrasound scanners are usually employed in such conditions [73,74,75,76]. Moreover, MRI presents a superior discriminating ability between tumors and healthy tissues in tumor removal surgeries [99,100,101,102] and in drug release [2,6]. Furthermore, MRI universally works in all tissues, unlike ultrasound, which is limited to tissues deprived of bone or air. On the other hand, MRI structures are vulnerable to electromagnetic interference (EMI), and hence robotic involvements, including interventional tools employed in image-guided procedures, should be insusceptible to EMI.
From the above analysis, the association of the scanner, image-processed digital control, the concerned tissue zone surrounded by healthy tissues, the interventional instrument, and the robotic actuation, all performed in a closed-loop procedure, is exhibited in Figure 2.
As mentioned in the previous section, the DT monitoring investigated in this article is performed on the complete surgical environment, related to the autonomous robotic procedure illustrated in Figure 2.

5.2. Integration of AI and ML Practices

Generally, as previously mentioned, AI and big data are essential for creating real-time perceptions that allow decision-making in complex processes [103,104,105,106]. Combining large data outflows and AI algorithms offers significant potential for extracting exploitable information with exceptional speed and accuracy.
AI can be used for complex decision-making, particularly in the context of autonomous precision robotic surgical procedures [13,14,15,16,17]. In such cases, the procedure must be performed autonomously within the target area with high precision, and make decisions in a fraction of a second to prevent any incidents. AI, through a set of rules, can manage multiple parameters such as positioning, speed, and adaptive control, thus enabling complex, real-time decision-making. AI therefore allows autonomous precision robotic procedures to be performed securely and skillfully, thereby reducing the risk of human error.
ML, when applied to data-driven predictions, enables the use of predictive analytics on healthcare data for precise and autonomous robotic interventions [82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89]. This allows for the prediction of disease progression and patient health status, thereby guiding the personalization of procedures and improving care. ML algorithms can manage and examine vast datasets, including patient records, lab results, and scan images, to identify trends and risk factors associated with various health conditions. Such algorithms unceasingly learn and upgrade their forecasts as further information become accessible, permitting individualized and proactive therapeutic methodologies. Thus, the employment of ML in healthcare allows for the timely detection of at-risk patients and the forecasting of disorder eruptions, promoting enhanced patient results, more reliable healthcare and decreased cost.
It should be noted that, in general, AI, ML, and DL reflect hierarchical relationships and applicable scenarios. For example, AI is the macro-goal (intelligent decision-making), ML is the method (learning from data), and DL is a tool within ML (suitable for images, time-series data, etc.). Their use in surgery can be, for instance, in rule-driven AI (e.g., path planning), data-driven ML (e.g., tissue recognition), and DL (e.g., intraoperative image segmentation).
Moreover, AI is not an isolated tool; it should be embedded throughout the entire workflow of “preoperative planning–intraoperative navigation–postoperative assessment.”

5.3. Tailored Actuation Technologies

The various robotic interventions described require actuators for instrument movement and positioning. Several actuation technologies are available, the most common being pneumatic, hydraulic, electromagnetic, and smart technologies, which operate according to their method of converting energy into movement, for example, piezoelectric, magnetostrictive, and photomechanical technologies; electroactive polymers; and shape memory alloys. These technologies have specific characteristics and requirements related to precision, potency, speed, and environmental conditions. Therefore, the robotic procedure in question will employ the most suitable actuator based on motion resolution, positioning accuracy, response time, rigidity, strength, structural complexity, insensitivity to EMI, dimensions, and other factors.
In light of the above and following the analysis of the autonomous robotic surgical procedure presented in Section 5.1 (an MRI-assisted robotic procedure), piezoelectric technology appears to be the preferred solution for such robotic medical interventions [21]. Indeed, this technology offers exceptional resolution at the nanoscale (compared to other smart technologies), rapid responsiveness (compared to pneumatic and hydraulic technologies), and an invulnerability to EMI due to the use of MRI (compared to electromagnetic technology), thus surpassing other common or smart technologies. The latter analysis is presented in Figure 3.

5.4. Actuated Robots and Self-Actuated Miniature Robots

Intervention or assistance robots actuated by piezoelectric technology [21] fall into two categories, depending on the therapeutic needs: self-actuated miniature structures using combined piezoelectric materials that allow them to move autonomously; and robotic arms actuated by external tools placed in their joints. The miniature robot category is linked to traveling waves (TWs) on thin-beam or plate structures, involving precise and limited transfers of small loads on the surface (see Figure 4) or within tissues [40,41,42,43], or of fluids in conduits (see Figure 5), such as micro-pumps [44,45]. These micro-robots are commonly used for precision tasks requiring smooth and repetitive transfers, corresponding to assistance tasks. The category of robotic arms (see Figure 6) uses step-by-step and/or repetitive movement strategies, allowing for wider strokes and greater freedom of movement [46], particularly thanks to stepper [47,48] and ultrasonic [49] actuators, which are particularly suited to medical interventions.

6. Augmented Monitoring in Healthcare Involvements

Supervising precision robotic interventions, through closed-loop MRI-assisted procedures, using AI-enhanced DT technology and XR digital tools, enables reliable and safe interventions, ensuring patient well-being and staff success. Beyond personalized intervention monitoring, these digital tools facilitate various specific tasks such as intervention scheduling, medical team training, therapeutic research, and education. These interventions ensure patient safety by adhering to the principles of minimally invasive surgery, avoiding toxicity, and preserving healthy tissue. Specifically, their invasiveness is controlled by imaging, the use of non-ionizing scanners guarantees the absence of toxicity, and precise positioning allows for the accurate delineation of the intervention area [2,6]. These interventions include surgery and drug administration.

6.1. Enhancement of Staff Skills

Smart digital administration permits medical teams to schedule, train, forecast, and perform interventions assisted by human control. Actually, DT-supervised interventions request preparation to fine-tune and confirm the concerned actions. These can be attained through the use of material phantoms and their digital replicas both included in the DT implementation. Such pre-duties comprise the personalized data of both patient and the intended intervention [107], including the adjustment of interventional questions, such as imaging adjustments and compatibility [108] and robotic concerns. In addition, such specific preparation permits medical teams to arbitrate options and be aware of potential evaluation mistakes [109,110]. Other smart digital tools included in medical applications could be found in different domains such as cognitive control training [111], advancing surgical training [112], learning [113,114], surgery [115], posture training and rehabilitation [116,117], and ethics [118].

6.2. Enhancement of Healthcare

Different clinical and healthcare improvements are associated with AI digital tools, such as patient security and clinical decision-making [119], the enhancement of efficacy, a decrease in expenses and the advancement of modernization in medical research [120], the forecast of reactions to anti-angiogenic treatment in renal cancer clinical trials [121], the conversion of healthcare supply through AI boards [122] and AI-enhanced novel DTs of patients or their organs based on large historical datasets [123]. In addition, DTs incorporating real-time data with IoT arrangement can allow dynamic patient modeling, prognostic diagnostics, and the optimization of medical tool execution [124] and DTs based on the framework for continuously modeling the tool–tissue interaction and monitoring the deformation and strain in the tissue surface [125]. Advances have also been made in continuous monitoring and the barriers to their translation that improve disease-risk assessment, tracking disease progression and enhancing overall health management [126]. Concerning robotic-assisted surgeries, remote procedures represent a potential solution to surgeon shortage and regional disparities in care [127], and integrating multi-modal robot sensing capabilities allow healthcare professionals to adapt to the dynamic requirements of complex surgical scenarios [128]. AI-assisted remote healthcare facilitates a transition from hospital-centered to decentralized, patient-centric care [129,130], involving smart wearable systems for health monitoring [131].

6.3. DT, AI and XR in the Management of MRI-Guided Interventions

As previously mentioned, for monitoring complex and autonomous robotic medical procedures, three types of digital tools are complementary: DTs [9,10,11,12], AI [13,14,15,16,17], and XR [18,19,20]. DT, in addition to digital monitoring, helps reduce uncertainties and external risks within complex systems [9]. AI, including ML [80,81], can play effective roles [82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89] in robotic decision-making in autonomous procedures through the use of data (AI) and in more reliable and skillful procedures via the analysis of that data (ML). XR facilitates immersion in human interaction during digital monitoring. The complementary roles of DT, AI and XR are illustrated in Figure 7.
The monitoring of MRI-guided autonomous intervention assisted by AI via XR-augmented DTs is illustrated in Figure 8.

7. Discussion

In the preceding sections, the supervision of precision robotic surgical interventions managed by intelligent digital tools in the general context of observation, diagnosis, assistance and interventions are all supported by digital skills. This needs to be addressed from different angles.

7.1. Relation Between Digital Skills and Innovations

Digital technologies have generally given rise to innovations that have fostered effective development based on understanding [132,133]. In the case of medical observation, diagnosis, assistance and interventions, digital skills have also permitted significant innovations. Regarding disruptive digital innovations in the health sector, the combined interest in digital transformation and healthcare in recent years, unexpectedly intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, has generated a plethora of publications on the subject. This has led to different studies on the analysis and evaluation of existing research on disruptive digital innovations in healthcare. These studies offer many interesting theoretical and practical implications that can be used to facilitate the digitalization of healthcare [134,135,136,137]. These innovations include improving staff skills and healthcare, as well as the role of DT, AI and XR in managing autonomous MRI-guided interventions, as discussed in Section 6.

7.2. Coordinated Strategies for Digital Health Creation

Within the framework of coordinated strategies for creating digital health solutions, concerns regarding staff, designers and patients generally focus on the need for more patient-centered design strategies, requirements for good practices in inclusive design, the integration of approved applications into clinical workflows, transparency and sustainability [138,139,140]. Moreover, multifunctional and smart tools incorporating AI, intelligent materials and energy reliable strategies can enable real-time detection [141]. Furthermore, the development of standardized testing protocols to assess the durability, biocompatibility, and stability of healthcare can enable clinically confirmed diagnoses, thereby contributing to the modernization of healthcare practices [142]. The importance of machine learning techniques in the diagnosis of cervical cancer is also recognized [143].

7.3. Validation Investigations and Path to Clinical Implementations

In the present paper, a transitional pathway from investigations to clinical implementation seems necessary. In addition to the relation between digital skills and innovations, as well as the coordinated strategies for digital health creation discussed above, there are many recent published works related to clinical validations and implementations. For example, these studies focus on clinical applications related to AI [144,145,146], brain–computer interfaces and stimulation [147,148,149], digital-skills-enhanced wearables [150,151,152,153,154,155], and implanted device concerns [156,157,158]. Furthermore, one can find different specific clinical concerns, for example historical diagnostics [159], federated learning for remote patient monitoring [160], environmental therapy [161], spinal cord injury [162] and digital hardware cost [163]. Moreover, serval transforming developments have been introduced, such as the use of the IoT within surgical practice [164], the use of AI in cardiothoracic surgery [165], the combined use of AI and image processing in detecting and classifying liver cancer [166], the implementation of DL algorithms for the classification and diagnosis of colorectal cancer histopathology images [167], and the usage of 3D printing in medicine to link imagery, education and practice [168].

7.4. Autonomous Procedure Complexity Admin and Model Reduction in DT

In the above analysis, the interventional autonomous procedure’s intrinsic complexity results from its interdependent phenomena interaction. Such complexity is significantly stressed by the living tissues of the body part affected by the intervention. A typical example of such tissues are those in the ocular system, which involve heat transfer and fluid dynamics, which are necessary for eye performance [169]. The mathematical representation of interdependent phenomena in the autonomous procedure can be achieved by coupling the equations of the corresponding phenomena. The more complex the procedure, the more complex the coupled solution will be. The DT treatment of complexity is performed via the matching of the real procedure and its virtual replica that include the coupled complete model. Therefore, the procedure DT virtual replica would include a bio-physical part involving a numerical model associated with interface and boundary conditions. As mentioned in the DT supervising process, it is needed to employ an order-reduced or surrogate model [170,171,172]. In fact, the speed of matching in the DT prevents the use of a fully coupled model, which nevertheless accurately represents real-world behavior. In this case, it is necessary to perform a sensitivity analysis of the model, followed by a model reduction strategy to decrease computation time although preserving the physical picture of the problem and retaining only the characteristics essential for a correct physical representation.

7.5. Medical Devices’ Vulnerability to EMI

Nowadays, artificial devices exerting electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are commonly used for a large amount of daily social assistance tasks. Nevertheless, such devices reflect intrinsic emissions, which can produce different unsolicited side effects on nearby objects. In fact, such exposures induce fields in the object relying on the exposure strength and frequency and the exposed object geometrical and material features. Generally, the exposed objects comprise living tissues, wearable devices, therapeutic and imaging tools, and other electronic appliances. Consequently, medically, the emitted EMF-induced fields can immediately disturb living tissues in general (human, animals, plants, etc.) and observation and assistance wearable tools peripherally, as well as devices implicated in medical interventions such as robots and imaging devices [173].
Concerning living tissues, the induced fields relative to EMF exposure crop biological effects (BEs) exemplified by the specific absorption rate (SAR), field frequency and exposure interval. These BEs generally reveal thermal outcomes, which could be dangerous for disproportionate SARs and durations [173,174].
As mentioned earlier, observation and assistance wearable tools and interventional robots and imaging devices are supposed to present strict immunity to EMI. Such invulnerability comprises defensive anti-external exposure, the proscription of internal EMF-sensitive substances and/or shielding. Indeed, EMF exposure can impact a target’s internal field or its functioning due to an internal EMF-sensitive matter, like the cases of MRI scanners or wearable tools, respectively. The level of EMI immunity of wearable and interventional devices quantifies their operational compatibility under EMF exposure. Such compatibility can be certified by suitable design or shielding, which can be controlled via electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) analysis using experimental or computational methodologies [175,176].

7.6. Future Research Perspectives

This section is dedicated to potential future perspectives related to the topics investigated in this paper. In the management of surgical interventions, the physical and digital representations of the dynamic mechanical behavior of living tissues need to be further investigated [177,178]. In a smart digital environment integrating smart materials and smart digital tools, biosecurity suggests the need for the investigation of compatible materials [179], as well as healthcare patient safety related to the use of digital technology, such as data transfer [180]. Smart digital monitoring using digital tools (DT, AI, and/or XR) can be extended to medical purposes beyond interventions as research explorations, design, development, healthcare management, biological approaches, and medical diagnostics [181,182,183,184,185]. In addition, in future, rehabilitation can use AI and ML optimization in training and real-time feedback [162], as well as developing intelligent, personalized healthcare applications via the use of AI-powered patient DTs [186].

7.7. Summary of Technological and Clinical Developments of the Study

The summarized technological and clinical analysis outcomes of the present narrative review are illustrated in Figure 9.

8. Conclusions

The present study analyzed and highlighted the supervision of robotic surgical interventions through image-assisted autonomous procedures augmented by AI and managed by DTs. The reviewed literature illustrated that such intelligent digital management allows staff to plan, train, predict, and execute interventions autonomously or under human supervision assisted by XR. Moreover, the literature attested that the patient safety and staff efficiency are linked to non-ionizing imaging, minimal invasiveness through image guidance, and strict delimitation of the intervention zone through precise positioning.
The different topics discussed included clinical analysis, technical examination, and translation challenges.
Future investigations should study the dynamic mechanical behavior of living tissues; biosecurity; healthcare patient safety related to the use of digital technology; the extension of digital monitoring to medical utilities beyond interventions as research explorations; the rehabilitation use of AI and ML; and intelligent, personalized healthcare via the use of AI-powered patient DTs.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Acknowledgments

The author has reviewed and edited the output and takes full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Alberghina, F.; Testa, G.; Monforte, S.; Pavone, V.; Andreacchio, A. From Codivilla to Ponseti: Historical narrative review on clubfoot treatment in Italy. Ann. Transl. Med. 2021, 9, 1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Razek, A. Image-Guided Surgical and Pharmacotherapeutic Routines as Part of Diligent Medical Treatment. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 13039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chen, S.; Fan, S.; Qiao, Z.; Wu, Z.; Lin, B.; Li, Z.; Riegler, M.A.; Wong, M.Y.H.; Opheim, A.; Korostynska, O.; et al. Transforming Healthcare: Intelligent Wearable Sensors Empowered by Smart Materials and Artificial Intelligence. Adv. Mater. 2025, 37, e2500412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Li, Y.; Luo, S.; Luo, R.; Liu, H. A novel real-time assistive hip-wearable exoskeleton robot based on motion prediction for lower extremity rehabilitation in subacute stroke: A single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. BMC Neurol. 2025, 25, 399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Winterbottom, L.; Chen, A.; Mendonca, R.; Nilsen, D.M.; Ciocarlie, M.; Stein, J. Clinician perceptions of a novel wearable robotic hand orthosis for post-stroke hemiparesis. Disabil. Rehabil. 2025, 47, 1577–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Razek, A. From Open, Laparoscopic, or Computerized Surgical Interventions to the Prospects of Image-Guided Involvement. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 4826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yang, X.; Duan, A.; Jiang, Z.; Li, X.; Wang, C.; Wang, J.; Zhou, J. Segmentation and Classification of Lung Cancer Images Using Deep Learning. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Franco, L.; Toma, M. Validation strategies for automated MRI-based classification of Alzheimer’s disease using deep feature extraction and machine learning. Artif. Intell. Health 2025, 2, 025360073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. 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]
  10. 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]
  11. Sun, T.; He, X.; Li, Z. Digital twin in healthcare: Recent updates and challenges. Digit. Health 2023, 9, 20552076221149651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Asciak, L.; Kyeremeh, J.; Luo, X.; Kazakidi, A.; Connolly, P.; Picard, F.; O’Neill, K.; Tsaftaris, S.A.; Stewart, G.D.; Shu, W. Digital twin assisted surgery, concept, opportunities, and challenges. NPJ Digit. Med. 2025, 8, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wah, J.N.K. The rise of robotics and AI-assisted surgery in modern healthcare. J. Robot. Surg. 2025, 19, 311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Karalis, V.D. The Integration of Artificial Intelligence into Clinical Practice. Appl. Biosci. 2024, 3, 14–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nasef, D.; Nasef, D.; Sawiris, V.; Weinstein, B.; Garcia, J.; Toma, M. Integrating artificial intelligence in clinical practice, hospital management, and health policy: Literature review. J. Hosp. Manag. Health Policy 2025, 9, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Boeken, T.; Lim, H.D.; Cohen, E.I. The Role and Future of Artificial Intelligence in Robotic Image-Guided Interventions. Tech. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2024, 27, 101001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Han, F.; Huang, X.; Wang, X.; Chen, Y.F.; Lu, C.; Li, S.; Lu, L.; Zhang, D.W. Artificial Intelligence in Orthopedic Surgery: Current Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions. MedComm 2025, 6, e70260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Oyama, S.; Iwase, H.; Yoneda, H.; Yokota, H.; Hirata, H.; Yamamoto, M. Insights and trends review: Use of extended reality (xR) in hand surgery. J. Hand Surg. Eur. Vol. 2025, 50, 762–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Angrisani, L.; D’Arco, M.; De Benedetto, E.; Duraccio, L.; Lo Regio, F.; Sansone, M.; Tedesco, A. Performance Measurement of Gesture-Based Human–Machine Interfaces Within eXtended Reality Head-Mounted Displays. Sensors 2025, 25, 2831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Guerra-Armas, J.; Roldán-Ruiz, A.; Flores-Cortes, M.; Harvie, D.S. Harnessing Extended Reality for Neurocognitive Training in Chronic Pain: State of the Art, Opportunities, and Future Directions. Healthcare 2025, 13, 1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Razek, A.; Bernard, Y. Potential of Piezoelectric Actuation and Sensing in High Reliability Precision Mechanisms and Their Applications in Medical Therapeutics. Actuators 2025, 14, 528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Razek, A.; Pichon, L. Smart Digital Environments for Monitoring Precision Medical Interventions and Wearable Observation and Assistance. Technologies 2026, 14, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gao, T.; Qiu, X.; Xu, P.; Hu, Z.; Yan, J.; Xiang, Y.; Xuan, F.Z. Piezoelectret-based dual-mode flexible pressure sensor for accurate wrist pulse signal acquisition in health monitoring. Measurement 2025, 242, 116283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Xie, Q.; Han, L.; Liu, J.; Zhang, W.; Zhao, L.; Liu, Y.; Chen, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhou, Q.; Dong, Y.; et al. Kirigami-Inspired Stretchable Piezoelectret Sensor for Analysis and Assessment of Parkinson’s Tremor. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 2025, 14, 2402010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Liu, E.; Cai, Z.; Ye, Y.; Zhou, M.; Liao, H.; Yi, Y. An Overview of Flexible Sensors: Development, Application, and Challenges. Sensors 2023, 23, 817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Devi, D.H.; Duraisamy, K.; Armghan, A.; Alsharari, M.; Aliqab, K.; Sorathiya, V.; Das, S.; Rashid, N. 5G Technology in Healthcare and Wearable Devices: A Review. Sensors 2023, 23, 2519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mukhopadhyay, S.C.; Suryadevara, N.K.; Nag, A. Wearable Sensors for Healthcare: Fabrication to Application. Sensors 2022, 22, 5137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chakrabarti, S.; Biswas, N.; Jones, L.D.; Kesari, S.; Ashili, S. Smart Consumer Wearables as Digital Diagnostic Tools: A Review. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Escobar-Linero, E.; Muñoz-Saavedra, L.; Luna-Perejón, F.; Sevillano, J.L.; Domínguez-Morales, M. Wearable Health Devices for Diagnosis Support: Evolution and Future Tendencies. Sensors 2023, 23, 1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pantelopoulos, A.; Bourbakis, N.G. A survey on wearable sensor-based systems for health monitoring and prognosis. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern. Part C 2010, 40, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ahmed, M.R.; Newby, S.; Potluri, P.; Mirihanage, W.; Fernando, A. Emerging Paradigms in Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring: Evaluating the Efficacy and Application of Innovative Textile-Based Wearables. Sensors 2024, 24, 6066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Moon, K.S.; Lee, S.Q. A Wearable Multimodal Wireless Sensing System for Respiratory Monitoring and Analysis. Sensors 2023, 23, 6790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Khan Mamun, M.M.R.; Sherif, A. Advancement in the Cuffless and Noninvasive Measurement of Blood Pressure: A Review of the Literature and Open Challenges. Bioengineering 2023, 10, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Xing, Y.; Yang, K.; Lu, A.; Mackie, K.; Guo, F. Sensors and Devices Guided by Artificial Intelligence for Personalized Pain Medicine. Cyborg Bionic Syst. 2024, 13, 0160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ding, S.; Pichon, L.; Chen, Y. A Low-cost Microwave Stentenna for In-stent Restenosis Detection. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 2025, 73, 8681–8692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mohan, A.; Kumar, N. Implantable antennas for biomedical applications: A systematic review. Biomed. Eng. Online 2024, 23, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Aliqab, K.; Nadeem, I.; Khan, S.R. A Comprehensive Review of In-Body Biomedical Antennas: Design, Challenges and Applications. Micromachines 2023, 14, 1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Alyami, A.M.; Kirimi, M.T.; Neale, S.L.; Mercer, J.R. Implantable Biosensors for Vascular Diseases: Directions for the Next Generation of Active Diagnostic and Therapeutic Medical Device Technologies. Biosensors 2025, 15, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kudłacik-Kramarczyk, S.; Kieres, W.; Przybyłowicz, A.; Ziejewska, C.; Marczyk, J.; Krzan, M. Recent Advances in Micro- and Nano-Enhanced Intravascular Biosensors for Real-Time Monitoring, Early Disease Diagnosis, and Drug Therapy Monitoring. Sensors 2025, 25, 4855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hariri, H. Design and Realization of a Piezoelectric Mobile for Cooperative Use. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Paris XI, Orsay, France, 2012. (In English) Available online: https://theses.hal.science/tel-01124059v1/file/2012PA112321.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2026).
  41. Ding, Z.; Cui, M.; Wu, J.; Wei, W.; Rong, X.; Li, Y. Development of an Untethered Self-Moving Piezoelectric Actuator with Load-Carriable, Fast, and Precise Movement Driven by Piezoelectric Stack Plates. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2025, 72, 11635–11646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hariri, H.; Bernard, Y.; Razek, A. 2-D Traveling Wave Driven Piezoelectric Plate Robot for Planar Motion. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2018, 23, 242–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hariri, H.; Bernard, Y.; Razek, A. A traveling wave piezoelectric beam robot. Smart Mater. Struct. 2014, 23, 025013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yang, Z.; Dong, L.; Wang, M.; Liu, G.; Li, X.; Li, Y. A wearable insulin delivery system based on a piezoelectric micropump. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2022, 347, 113909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. 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]
  46. Spanner, K.; Koc, B. Piezoelectric Motors, an Overview. Actuators 2016, 5, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ghenna, S.; Bernard, Y.; Daniel, L. Design and experimental analysis of a high force piezoelectric linear motor. Mechatronics 2023, 89, 102928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, S.; Rong, W.; Wang, L.; Xie, H.; Sun, L.; Mills, J.K. A survey of piezoelectric actuators with long working stroke in recent years: Classifications, principles, connections and distinctions. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2019, 123, 591–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tian, X.; Liu, Y.; Deng, J.; Wang, L.; Chen, W. A review on piezoelectric ultrasonic motors for the past decade: Classification, operating principle, performance, and future work perspectives. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 2020, 306, 111971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bhuva, A.N.; Moralee, R.; Brunker, T.; Lascelles, K.; Cash, L.; Patel, K.P.; Lowe, M.; Sekhri, N.; Alpendurada, F.; Pennell, D.J.; et al. Evidence to support magnetic resonance conditional labelling of all pacemaker and defibrillator leads in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. Eur. Heart J. 2022, 43, 2469–2478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Joo, H.; Lee, Y.; Kim, J.; Yoo, J.S.; Yoo, S.; Kim, S.; Arya, A.K.; Kim, S.; Choi, S.H.; Lu, N.; et al. Soft Implantable Drug Delivery Device Integrated Wirelessly with Wearable Devices to Treat Fatal Seizures. Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, eabd4639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cheng, Y.; Xie, D.; Han, Y.; Guo, S.; Sun, Z.; Jing, L.; Man, W.; Liu, D.; Yang, K.; Lei, D.; et al. Precise management system for chronic intractable pain patients implanted with spinal cord stimulation based on a remote programming platform: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (PreMaSy study). Trials 2023, 24, 580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gordon, J.S.; Maynes, E.J.; O’Malley, T.J.; Pavri, B.B.; Tchantchaleishvili, V. Electromagnetic interference between implantable cardiac devices and continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: A review. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 2021, 61, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. 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]
  55. 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]
  56. 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]
  57. Bittner, R. Laparoscopic surgery—15 years after clinical introduction. World J. Surg. 2006, 30, 1190–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. 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]
  59. 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]
  60. 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]
  61. Williamson, T.; Song, S.E. Robotic Surgery Techniques to Improve Traditional Laparoscopy. JSLS 2022, 26, e2022.00002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. 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]
  63. 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]
  64. 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]
  65. 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]
  66. 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]
  67. Wan, Q.; Shi, Y.; Xiao, X.; Li, X.; Mo, H. Review of Human–Robot Collaboration in Robotic Surgery. Adv. Intell. Syst. 2024, 7, 2400319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. 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]
  69. 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]
  70. Dagnino, G.; Kundrat, D. Robot-assistive minimally invasive surgery: Trends and future directions. Int. J. Intell. Robot. Appl. 2024, 8, 812–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. 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]
  72. 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]
  73. 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]
  74. 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]
  75. 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]
  76. 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]
  77. 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]
  78. 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] [PubMed]
  79. 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]
  80. Remyes, D.; Nasef, D.; Remyes, S.; Tawfellos, J.; Sher, M.; Nasef, D.; Toma, M. Clinical Applicability and Cross-Dataset Validation of Machine Learning Models for Binary Glaucoma Detection. Information 2025, 16, 432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Balyen, L.; Peto, T. Promising Artificial Intelligence-Machine Learning-Deep Learning Algorithms in Ophthalmology. Asia-Pac. J. Ophthalmol. 2019, 8, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Husain, G.; Mayer, J.; Bekbolatova, M.; Vathappallil, P.; Matalia, M.; Toma, M. Machine learning for medical image classification. Acad. Med. 2024, 1, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Jha, G.; Dhanjal, R.; Malasani, S.; Karunakaran, A.V. Deep Learning in Scaphoid Fracture Detection and Healing Prediction: A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Hand Surgery. Cureus 2025, 17, e97900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tougui, I.; Jilbab, A.; Mhamdi, J.E. Impact of the choice of cross-validation techniques on the results of machine learning-based diagnostic applications. Healthc. Inform. Res. 2021, 27, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Pelletier, E.D.; Jeffries, S.D.; Song, K.; Hemmerling, T.M. Comparative analysis of machine-learning model performance in image analysis: The impact of dataset diversity and size. Anesth. Analg. 2024, 139, 1332–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Yuan, H. Toward real-world deployment of machine learning for health care: External validation, continual monitoring, and randomized clinical trials. Health Care Sci. 2024, 3, 360–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Oke, I.; VanderVeen, D. Machine Learning Applications in Pediatric Ophthalmology. Semin. Ophthalmol. 2021, 36, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Alsaih, K.; Lemaitre, G.; Rastgoo, M.; Massich, J.; Sidibé, D.; Meriaudeau, F. Machine learning techniques for diabetic macular edema (DME) classification on SD-OCT images. BioMed. Eng. OnLine 2017, 16, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Sher, M.; Remyes, D.; Sharma, R.; Toma, M. Learning Dynamics Analysis: Assessing Generalization of Machine Learning Models for Optical Coherence Tomography Multiclass Classification. Informatics 2025, 12, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. 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]
  91. 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]
  92. 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]
  93. 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]
  94. 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]
  95. Song, Y. Human digital twin, the development and impact on design. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng. 2023, 23, 060819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. 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]
  97. 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] [PubMed]
  98. Nadeem, M.; Kostic, S.; Dornhöfer, M.; Weber, C.; Fathi, M. A comprehensive review of digital twin in healthcare in the scope of simulative health-monitoring. Digit. Health 2025, 11, 20552076241304078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. 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]
  100. 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]
  101. 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]
  102. 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; pp. 1985–1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Panyaram, S. Integrating Artificial Intelligence with Big Data for Real-Time Insights and Decision-Making in Complex Systems. FMDB Trans. Sustain. Intell. Netw. 2024, 1, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Deliu, D.; Olariu, A. The Role of Artificial Intelligence and Big Data Analytics in Shaping the Future of Professions in Industry 6.0: Perspectives from an Emerging Market. Electronics 2024, 13, 4983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Himeur, Y.; Elnour, M.; Fadli, F.; Meskin, N.; Petri, I.; Rezgui, Y.; Bensaali, F.; Amira, A. AI-big data analytics for building automation and management systems: A survey, actual challenges and future perspectives. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2023, 56, 4929–5021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Parmar, A. AI-driven data analytics for real-time decision-making. Int. J. Progress. Res. Eng. Manag. Sci. 2025, 5, 372–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Vallée, A. Digital twins for cardiovascular diseases: Towards personalised and sustainable care. Acta Cardiol. 2025, 80, 1055–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kantor, T.; Mahajan, P.; Murthi, S.; Stegink, C.; Brawn, B.; Varshney, A.; Reddy, R.M. Role of eXtended Reality use in medical imaging interpretation for pre-surgical planning and intraoperative augmentation. J. Med. Imaging 2024, 11, 062607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. 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]
  110. 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]
  111. Song, H.; Oh, Y.; Choi, J.; Ohm, S.Y. Effectiveness of Virtual Reality-Based Cognitive Control Training Game for Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Symptoms: Preliminary Effectiveness Study. JMIR Pediatr. Parent. 2025, 8, e66617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Kayaalp, M.E.; Konstantinou, E.; Karaismailoglu, B.; Lucidi, G.A.; Kaymakoglu, M.; Vieider, R.; Giusto, J.D.; Inoue, J.; Hirschmann, M.T. The metaverse in orthopaedics: Virtual, augmented and mixed reality for advancing surgical training, arthroscopy, arthroplasty and rehabilitation. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2025, 33, 3039–3050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Faizan Siddiqui, M.; Jabeen, S.; Alwazzan, A.; Vacca, S.; Dalal, L.; Al-Haddad, B.; Jaber, A.; Ballout, F.F.; Abou Zeid, H.K.; Haydamous, J.; et al. Integration of Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Extended Reality in Healthcare and Medical Education: A Glimpse into the Emerging Horizon in LMICs-A Systematic Review. J. Med. Educ. Curric. Dev. 2025, 12, 23821205251342315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Pantusin, F.J.; Ortiz, J.S.; Carvajal, C.P.; Andaluz, V.H.; Yar, L.G.; Roberti, F.; Gandolfo, D. Digital Twin Integration for Active Learning in Robotic Manipulator Control Within Engineering 4.0. Symmetry 2025, 17, 1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Sang, A.Y.; Wang, X.; Paxton, L. Technological Advancements in Augmented, Mixed, and Virtual Reality Technologies for Surgery: A Systematic Review. Cureus 2024, 16, e76428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ai, X.; Agrawal, S.K. Remote Extended Reality with Markerless Motion Tracking for Sitting Posture Training. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2024, 9, 9860–9867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Morimoto, T.; Hirata, H.; Ueno, M.; Fukumori, N.; Sakai, T.; Sugimoto, M.; Kobayashi, T.; Tsukamoto, M.; Yoshihara, T.; Toda, Y.; et al. Digital Transformation Will Change Medical Education and Rehabilitation in Spine Surgery. Medicina 2022, 58, 508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Cox, S.; Kadlubsky, A.; Svarverud, E.; Adams, J.; Baraas, R.C.; Bernabe, R.D.L.C. A scoping review of the ethics frameworks describing issues related to the use of extended reality. Open Res. Eur. 2025, 4, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Mahajan, A.; Heydari, K.; Powell, D. Wearable AI to enhance patient safety and clinical decision-making. npj Digit. Med. 2025, 8, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Antonakea, N.K.; Chapiro, J.; Geschwind, J. The Role of AI in Clinical Trial Design and Scientific Writing. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Jasti, J.; Zhong, H.; Panwar, V.; Jarmale, V.; Miyata, J.; Carrillo, D.; Christie, A.; Rakheja, D.; Modrusan, Z.; Kadel, E.E., 3rd; et al. Histopathology based AI model predicts anti-angiogenic therapy response in renal cancer clinical trial. Nat. Commun. 2025, 16, 2610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Mahajan, A.; Powell, D. Transforming healthcare delivery with conversational AI platforms. npj Digit. Med. 2025, 8, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Łukaniszyn, M.; Majka, Ł.; Grochowicz, B.; Mikołajewski, D.; Kawala-Sterniuk, A. Digital Twins Generated by Artificial Intelligence in Personalized Healthcare. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 9404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Kabir, M.R.; Shishir, F.S.; Shomaji, S.; Ray, S. Digital twins in healthcare IoT: A systematic review. High-Confid. Comput. 2025, 5, 100340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Chen, J.; Kobayashi, E.; Sakuma, I.; Tomii, N. SurgEM: A Vision-Based Surgery Environment Modeling Framework for Constructing a Digital Twin Toward Autonomous Soft Tissue Manipulation. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 2024, 9, 9789–9796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Chen, J.; Jastrzebska-Perfect, P.; Chai, P.; Say, M.G.; Tu, J.; Gao, W.; Halperin, F.; Korzenik, J.; Huang, H.W.; Katabi, D.; et al. Barriers to translating continuous monitoring technologies for preventative medicine. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2025, 9, 1797–1815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Hara, T.; Morihiro, Y.; Horise, Y.; Komatsu, S.; Ohashi, M.; Kitatsuji, H.; Yao, A.; Muragaki, Y.; Miyake, H. Toward safe clinical deployment of remote robotic surgery in Japan: Five-year validation of the hinotori™ system using 5G wireless communication. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 2025, 30, 2389–2398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Wang, N.; Ying, Y.; Wang, W.; Liu, J.; Wu, D.; Zhao, Y. Intelligent sensing and measurement technologies for medical robotics: A review. Sens. Actuators 2025, 394, 116956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Ghadi, Y.Y.; Shah, S.F.A.; Waheed, W.; Mazhar, T.; Ahmad, W.; Saeed, M.M.; Hamam, H. Integration of wearable technology and artificial intelligence in digital health for remote patient care. J. Cloud Comp. 2025, 14, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Sharma, P. Smart healthcare: The role of AI, robotics, and NLP in advancing telemedicine and remote patient monitoring. BMC Artif. Intell. 2025, 1, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Deng, Z.; Guo, L.; Chen, X.; Wu, W. Smart Wearable Systems for Health Monitoring. Sensors 2023, 23, 2479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Jiao, H.; Wang, T.; Libaers, D.; Yang, J.; Hu, L. The relationship between digital technologies and innovation: A review, critique, and research agenda. J. Innov. Knowl. 2025, 10, 100638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Saeedikiya, M.; Salunke, S.; Kowalkiewicz, M. The nexus of digital transformation and innovation: A multilevel framework and research agenda. J. Innov. Knowl. 2025, 10, 100640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Bamel, U.; Talwar, S.; Pereira, V.; Corazza, L.; Dhir, A. Disruptive digital innovations in healthcare: Knowing the past and anticipating the future. Technovation 2023, 125, 102785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Singh, N.; Jain, M.; Kamal, M.M.; Bodhi, R.; Gupta, B. Technological paradoxes and artificial intelligence implementation in healthcare. An application of paradox theory. Technolog. Forecast. Soc. Change 2024, 198, 122967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Alshehri, S.; Alahmari, K.A.; Alasiry, A. A Comprehensive Evaluation of AI-Assisted Diagnostic Tools in ENT Medicine: Insights and Perspectives from Healthcare Professionals. J. Pers. Med. 2024, 14, 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Alamri, A.H.; AlZabin, A.; Magboul, N.; Alrasheed, A.S.; Alokby, G.; Alroqi, A. Comparative analysis of artificial intelligence platforms in generating Post-Operative instructions for endoscopic transnasal skull base surgery. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2025, 283, 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Grijalvo, M.; Ordieres-Meré, J.; Uche-Soria, M.; Tabuenca, B.; Aladro-Benito, Y. Apps and knowledge contributing to creating value for ehealth solutions. J. Innov. Knowl. 2026, 12, 100886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Harrison, S.; Maple, C.; Epiphaniou, G.; Arvanitis, T.N. Improving safety claims in digital health interventions using the digital health assessment method. Digit. Health 2024, 10, 20552076241258756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Harrison, S.; Islam, S.U.; Waseem, H.M.; Epiphaniou, G. Digital health interventions use cases: Classification and taxonomy development, a scoping review. Digit. Health 2025, 11, 20552076251375958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Xue, Z.; Gai, Y.; Wu, Y.; Liu, Z.; Li, Z. Wearable mechanical and electrochemical sensors for real-time health monitoring. Commun. Mater. 2024, 5, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Ji, J.; Su, T.; Lu, J.; Gao, X.; Zhang, L. Progress in the flexible and stretchable epidermal electrodes for wearable ECG monitoring. BME Horiz. 2025, 3, 202510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Dias, F.E.; Braga, S.D.; Xavier, A.C.G.; da Paz, G.M.; Veras, R.d.M.S.; Paiva, A.C.; Silva, A.C.; Neto, O.P. Cervical cancer classification from Pap smear cells using machine learning models. Acad. Oncol. 2025, 2, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Piechowiak, M.; Goch, A.; Panas, E.; Masiak, J.; Mikołajewski, D.; Rojek, I.; Mikołajewska, E. From Local to Global Perspective in AI-Based Digital Twins in Healthcare. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Rojek, I.; Prokopowicz, P.; Piechowiak, M.; Kotlarz, P.; Náprstková, N.; Mikołajewski, D. The Impact of Data Analytics Based on Internet of Things, Edge Computing, and Artificial Intelligence on Energy Efficiency in Smart Environment. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Zimatore, G.; Russo, S.; Gallotta, M.C.; Passalacqua, G.; Zaborova, V.; Campanella, M.; Fiani, F.; Baldari, C.; Napoli, C.; Randieri, C. HRV in Stress Monitoring by AI: A Scoping Review. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Montoya-Gálvez, J.; Ivankovic, K.; Rocamora, R.; Principe, A. The Therapeutic Loop: Closed-Loop Epilepsy Systems Mirroring the Read–Write Architecture of Brain–Computer Interfaces. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Syrek, P.; Skowron, M. Transcranial Brain Stimulation: Technical, Computational, and Clinical Aspects in Contemporary Research. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Lee, J.; Kang, S.; Hong, S.W. Flexible Micro-Neural Interface Devices: Advances in Materials Integration and Scalable Manufacturing Technologies. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Caixeiro, D.; Cordeiro, T.; Constantino, L.; Carreira, J.; Mendes, R.; Silva, C.G.; Castro, M.A. Effectiveness of Wearable Devices for Posture Correction: A Systematic Review of Evidence from Randomized and Quasi-Experimental Studies. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Li, P.; Lang, S.; Xie, L.; Zhang, Y.; Gou, X.; Zhang, C.; Dong, C.; Li, C.; Yang, J. Skin-Inspired Ultra-Linear Flexible Iontronic Pressure Sensors for Wearable Musculoskeletal Monitoring. Nanomicro Lett. 2025, 18, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Di Palo, M.P.; del Sorbo, R.; Pessolano, C.; Mongelli, G.; Bartolomeo, M.; Giordano, M.; Ragusa, C.M. AI-Driven Intervention with Wearable Remote Monitoring Devices for Human Health. In Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. Industry, Doctoral-Symposium, Tutorial, and Workshop Papers. PROFES 2025; Scanniello, G., Lenarduzzi, V., Romano, S., Vegas, S., Francese, R., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2026; Volume 16362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Wang, W.; Luo, Z.; Yu, X.; Yin, X.; Xiang, L.; Pan, A. A Highly Permeable and Three-Dimensional Integrated Electronic System for Wearable Human-Robot Interaction. Nanomicro Lett. 2026, 18, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Zhang, Y.; Qiu, S.; Du, K.; Wu, S.; Xiang, T.; Zheng, K.; Liu, Z.; Chen, H.; Ji, N.; Wang, F.; et al. Artificial Intelligence-Enhanced Wearable Blood Pressure Monitoring in Resource-Limited Settings: A Co-Design of Sensors, Model, and Deployment. Nanomicro Lett. 2026, 18, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Qu, X.; Wan, J.; Zhao, H.; Xu, S.; Cheng, X.; Yang, B.; Li, Z.; Ji, L.; Wu, J.; Li, Z.; et al. Closed-loop wearable neurostimulation system with triboelectric sensing to alleviate hemifacial spasms. Nat. Commun. 2025, 16, 11148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Wang, S.; Wei, L.; Wang, F.; Wang, L.; Mao, J. Advanced implantable energy storage for powering medical devices. eScience 2025, 5, 100409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Lan, Y.; Li, S.; Guo, H.; Liu, Q.; Wang, T.; Zhou, L.; Fang, J.; Zhao, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Wang, Q.; et al. Soft biodegradable implants for long-distance and wide-angle sensing. Nature 2026, 649, 366–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Velaga, S.T.; Jia, K.; Rimsky, E.; Saouma, S.; Shah, R.; Akhrass, P.; Kowalski, M.; Parikh, V. Procedural and short-term performance outcomes of dual-chamber leadless pacemakers from a single-center experience. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Klimasz, K.; Tomasik, J.T.; Tomasik, P.J. History of Urinalysis. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Benabderrahmane, F.; Kerkouche, E.; Bouchemal, N. Risk-Aware Privacy-Preserving Federated Learning for Remote Patient Monitoring: A Multi-Layer Adaptive Security Framework. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Rogers, S.L.; Canes, T.; Pallister, A. User Experience in Virtual Self-Disclosure: Appraising Natural, Urban, and Artificial VR Environments. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Zhong, H.; Wang, H.; Huang, B.; Liu, S.; Song, Z.; Tang, Y.; Li, J.; Ye, Y.; Zhou, M. Current frontier technologies in spinal cord injury research: A narrative review. Adv. Technol. Neurosci. 2026, 2, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Naderi, A.; Ghanbarpour, G.; Ghanbarpour, M.; Haghiri, S.; Ahmadi, A. Sinoatrial node cells implementation by low cost digital hardware. Analog. Integr. Circuits Signal Process. 2026, 126, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Mulita, F.; Verras, G.-I.; Anagnostopoulos, C.-N.; Kotis, K. A Smarter Health through the Internet of Surgical Things. Sensors 2022, 22, 4577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Vaidya, Y.P.; Shumway, S.J. Artificial intelligence: The future of cardiothoracic surgery. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2025, 169, 1265–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Dimopoulos, P.; Mulita, A.; Antzoulas, A.; Bodard, S.; Leivaditis, V.; Akrida, I.; Benetatos, N.; Katsanos, K.; Anagnostopoulos, C.N.; Mulita, F. The role of artificial intelligence and image processing in the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of liver cancer: A narrative-review. Prz. Gastroenterol. 2024, 19, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Chlorogiannis, D.D.; Verras, G.I.; Tzelepi, V.; Chlorogiannis, A.; Apostolos, A.; Kotis, K.; Anagnostopoulos, C.N.; Antzoulas, A.; Davakis, S.; Vailas, M.; et al. Tissue classification and diagnosis of colorectal cancer histopathology images using deep learning algorithms. Is the time ripe for clinical practice implementation? Prz. Gastroenterol. 2023, 18, 353–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Anagnostopoulos, S.; Baltayiannis, N.; Koletsis, N.E.; Mulita, F.; Spanou, F.; Leivaditis, V.; Katsakiori, P.; Tsakaldimis, G.; Nikolakopoulos, K.; Mitsos, S.; et al. 3D printing in medicine: Bridging imaging, education, and practice. Arch. Med. Sci. Atheroscler. Dis. 2025, 10, e172–e188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Saigre, T.; Prud’Homme, C.; Szopos, M.; Chabannes, V. A coupled fluid-dynamics-heat transfer model for 3D simulations of the aqueous humor flow in the human eye. arXiv 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Cornetta, G.; Touhafi, A.; Contreras, J.; Zaragoza, A. Multi-Fidelity Surrogate Models for Accelerated Multi-Objective Analog Circuit Design and Optimization. Electronics 2026, 15, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Qiao, L.; Qin, J.; Lin, B.; Zhang, F.; Jiang, M. Tension–Torsion Coupling Analysis and Structural Parameter Optimization of Conductor Based on RBFNN Surrogate Model. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Gallardo Romero, G.; Rodríguez-Llorente, G.; Magariños Rodríguez, L.; Morant Navascués, R.; Khvatkin Petrovsky, N.; Lorenzo Ortega, R.; Gómez-Espinosa Martín, R. Differentiable Deep Learning Surrogate Models Applied to the Optimization of the IFMIF-DONES Facility. Particles 2025, 8, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. 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]
  174. Laganà, F.; Bibbò, L.; Calcagno, S.; De Carlo, D.; Pullano, S.A.; Pratticò, D.; Angiulli, G. Smart Electronic Device-Based Monitoring of SAR and Temperature Variations in Indoor Human Tissue Interaction. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 2439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Razek, A. Assessment of a Functional Electromagnetic Compatibility Analysis of Near-Body Medical Devices Subject to Electromagnetic Field Perturbation. Electronics 2023, 12, 4780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. De Leo, A. Special Issue on Advanced Technologies in Electromagnetic Compatibility. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Qiu, Y.; Gao, T.; Smith, B.R. Mechanical deformation and death of circulating tumor cells in the bloodstream. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2024, 43, 1489–1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Wu, L.; Huang, R.; Zhu, J.; Ma, X. A Dynamic Mechanical Analysis Device for In Vivo Material Characterization of Plantar Soft Tissue. Technologies 2025, 13, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Vinchurkar, K.; Bukke, S.P.N.; Jain, P.; Bhadoria, J.; Likhariya, M.; Mane, S.; Suryawanshi, M.; Veerabhadrappa, K.V.; Eftekhari, Z.; Onohuean, H. Advances in sustainable biomaterials: Characterizations, and applications in medicine. Discov. Polym. 2025, 2, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Oh, C.; Kim, Y.M.; Lee, T.; Lee, S.M.; Jung, J.; Bae, H.M.; Kim, C.; Lee, H.J. Patch-type capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducer for ultrasonic power and data transfer. Microsyst. Nanoeng. 2025, 11, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Mizna, S.; Arora, S.; Saluja, P.; Das, G.; Alanesi, W.A. An analytic research and review of the literature on practice of artificial intelligence in healthcare. Eur. J. Med. Res. 2025, 30, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Gowri, V.; Uma, M.; Sethuramalingam, P. Machine learning enabled robot-assisted virtual health monitoring system design and development. Multiscale Multidiscip. Model. Exp. Des. 2024, 7, 2259–2288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Gitto, S.; Giuliani, G.; Lasciarrea, A. A Digital Twin System to Enable Better Healthcare Management. In Hybrid Human-AI Collaborative Networks; Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Ortiz, A., Boucher, X., Lucas Soares, A., Eds.; PRO-VE 2025. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2026; p. 770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Yadav, S.; Mondal, J.; Saha, M. Systems biology approaches for multi omics integration using artificial intelligence. Acad. Biol. 2026, 4, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Bartusik-Aebisher, D.; Justin Raj, D.R.; Aebisher, D. Artificial Intelligence in Medical Diagnostics: Foundations, Clinical Applications, and Future Directions. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Marfoglia, A.; D’Errico, C.; Mellone, S.; Carbonaro, A. A knowledge graph-driven framework for deploying AI-powered patient digital twins. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2026, 180, 108380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Illustration of expression connections in paper sections (indicated in red).
Figure 1. Illustration of expression connections in paper sections (indicated in red).
Surgeries 07 00026 g001
Figure 2. Representation of a closed-loop controlled autonomous procedure including the scanner, interventional tool, robotic actuation, and control, together with the imaged, restricted zone of concern [22].
Figure 2. Representation of a closed-loop controlled autonomous procedure including the scanner, interventional tool, robotic actuation, and control, together with the imaged, restricted zone of concern [22].
Surgeries 07 00026 g002
Figure 3. Recapitulated choice strategies related to scanner and robotic actuating instruments in an image-guided robotic intervention [21,22].
Figure 3. Recapitulated choice strategies related to scanner and robotic actuating instruments in an image-guided robotic intervention [21,22].
Surgeries 07 00026 g003
Figure 4. Case of a TW piezoelectric incorporated micro-robot moving on a smooth surface [40].
Figure 4. Case of a TW piezoelectric incorporated micro-robot moving on a smooth surface [40].
Surgeries 07 00026 g004
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of a TW micro-piezoelectric- pump moving a fluid at a precisely controlled flow rate [45].
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of a TW micro-piezoelectric- pump moving a fluid at a precisely controlled flow rate [45].
Surgeries 07 00026 g005
Figure 6. Example of actuated robotic arm joints in a prototype actuated by PZM technologies [21].
Figure 6. Example of actuated robotic arm joints in a prototype actuated by PZM technologies [21].
Surgeries 07 00026 g006
Figure 7. Summarized complementary roles of DT, AI and XR in the management of autonomous robotic medical procedures.
Figure 7. Summarized complementary roles of DT, AI and XR in the management of autonomous robotic medical procedures.
Surgeries 07 00026 g007
Figure 8. Illustration of monitoring of MRI-assisted autonomous intervention supported by AI via XR-augmented DTs.
Figure 8. Illustration of monitoring of MRI-assisted autonomous intervention supported by AI via XR-augmented DTs.
Surgeries 07 00026 g008
Figure 9. Illustration of summarized technological and clinical developments of the study.
Figure 9. Illustration of summarized technological and clinical developments of the study.
Surgeries 07 00026 g009
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Razek, A. Image-Guided Autonomous Robotic Surgery in the Context of Therapies Managed by Intelligent Digital Technologies: A Narrative Review. Surgeries 2026, 7, 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries7010026

AMA Style

Razek A. Image-Guided Autonomous Robotic Surgery in the Context of Therapies Managed by Intelligent Digital Technologies: A Narrative Review. Surgeries. 2026; 7(1):26. https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries7010026

Chicago/Turabian Style

Razek, Adel. 2026. "Image-Guided Autonomous Robotic Surgery in the Context of Therapies Managed by Intelligent Digital Technologies: A Narrative Review" Surgeries 7, no. 1: 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries7010026

APA Style

Razek, A. (2026). Image-Guided Autonomous Robotic Surgery in the Context of Therapies Managed by Intelligent Digital Technologies: A Narrative Review. Surgeries, 7(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries7010026

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop