Download to read offline
![Surgical Robotics // The Next 25 Years // 2
PIONEERS AND EARLY ADOPTERS
It was just over 25 years ago that researchers first attempted to
improve surgical outcome by using robotic technology, which had been
slowly gaining acceptance as a powerful tool for precise automation.
Indeed, the first surgical robot was a lightly customised industrial
manipulator that was re-purposed to direct a needle into the brain
[Kwoh et al., 1988].
Early ventures
The first well-known surgical robots, ROBODOC® [Kazanzides et
al., 1992] and Acrobot [Davies et al., 1997] for orthopaedic surgery,
and Probot [Harris et al., 1997] for prostate surgery, initiated from
similar design considerations prior to evolving into customised surgical
platforms. ROBODOC® was developed in the United States by
Taylor et al., while Probot and Acrobot were developed in the United
Kingdom by Davies et al. Our vignettes illustrate the parallel but
different stories of Acrobot and ROBODOC®, despite both systems
being contemporary and developed in countries of similar economic
and social backgrounds. These efforts led to a multitude of academic
centres and research institutions undertaking research in the field of
surgical robotics.
FROM RESEARCH
TO PATIENTS:
The story of ROBODOC®
Initial research on ROBODOC® began
through collaboration of University of
California, Davis, and IBM Thomas J.
Watson Centre. First clinical trials took
place in 1992. Commercialisation of
ROBODOC® begun in Europe already
in 1994, but the robot was withdrawn
from the market. In 2007, Korean
Curexo acquired ROBODOC®
and completed clinical trials in the
United States. ROBODOC® acquired
FDA clearance in 2008, and is currently
used as a branded system worldwide.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/426c94dd-943f-4caa-9a66-1255463d0c11-160706113328/75/UK_RAS_WP_SR25yr_web-7-2048.jpg)
![3 // Surgical Robotics // The Next 25 Years
FIGURE 1.
Fig. 1: Timeline of surgical technology development (adapted from
[Vitiello et al., 2013]).The story of Acrobot
The development of Acrobot (Active
Constraint Robot) by Dr Brian Davies
at Imperial College London started
in 1992. In 2000, Dr Davies founded
Acrobot Ltd as a spin-off company with
the help of Imperial Innovations. The
first clinical trials took place in 2001,
with the first randomised trial in 2006.
The company was then acquired
by Stanmore Implants Worldwide
(SIW) in 2010. In 2011, SIW obtained a
510K license to use the Acrobot robot
in USA. Shortly after, Mako Surgical
bought all the Acrobot patents and
technology. Finally, in 2013 Stryker
Medical acquired Mako.
1860's Antiseptic surgery
1890's Image guided surgery
Open Surgery
2000's NOTES
2010's da Vinci® Single Site™
2010's Magellan™ robotic catheter system
2010's Flexible NOTES platforms
Flexible Access Surgery
1990's da Vinci® surgical system
2000's Transcontinental robotic telesurgery
2000's Sensei™ robotic catheter system
2010's Micro-robots
2010's Flexible platforms for microsurgery
Minimally Invasive Surgery
Robotic Surgery Robotic Microsurgery
1950's Hopkins rod lens endoscope
1960's Angioplasty
1960's Fibre-optic flexible endoscope
1980's Laparoscopic surgery
1860s
1890s
1950s
1980s
1990s
2000s
2000s
2010s
2010s
2016s](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/426c94dd-943f-4caa-9a66-1255463d0c11-160706113328/75/UK_RAS_WP_SR25yr_web-8-2048.jpg)
![Surgical Robotics // The Next 25 Years // 4
FIGURE 2:
Surgical procedures conducted by the da Vinci® worldwide
(TOP), number of systems sold as of 31st of December
2015 (MIDDLE) and company financial data in million dollars
(BOTTOM) (data from the Intuitive Surgical 2015 Annual
Report, available at www.intuitivesurgical.com).
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Urology General surgery OtherGynaecology
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Revenue Gross profit Net income
2010 2012 2013 2014 20152011
USA
Europe
Asia
Rest of the world
2399
608
423
167
2015
14% Growth
Minimally invasive surgery
In parallel to the pioneering integration of robotics in
orthopaedics and neurosurgery, Hopkins’ rod lens
transformed the early developments of laparoscopic surgery.
However, these procedures are ergonomically difficult to
perform due to the use of long, rigid instruments, coupled
with the fulcrum effect and misalignment of visual-motor
axes (see Fig 1). Augmentation of surgical skills was thus
sought in robotics, building on the early research on tele-
manipulation, millimetre-scale tendon-driven wrists, and
hardware-based remote centres of motion (RCM) resulted
in two innovative platforms: the Zeus by Computer Motion
[Ghodoussi et al., 2002], and the da Vinci® from Intuitive
Surgical [Guthart and Salisbury, 2000].
The first version of the da Vinci® and Zeus tele-operated
systems featured a surgeon master console and a
patient slave manipulator with three arms, two for tissue
manipulation and one for endoscopic camera positioning.
Each arm could provide 6 degrees-of-freedom plus the
instrument actuation, while respecting the RCM constraint
at the tool entry point on the patient skin. A key difference
between the two robots was the use of voice control
commands to actuate the camera arm of the Zeus, also
known as the AESOP (Automated Endoscopic System for
Optimal Positioning) robotic system.
The Zeus system was used to perform the first transatlantic
telesurgery between Manhattan, New York, USA and
Strasbourg, France [Marescaux et al., 2001], but is no longer
in production since the merging of Computer Motion with
Intuitive Surgical in 2003. On the other hand, the da Vinci®
system quickly expanded in the United States and eventually
became a global market leader (see Fig. 2).](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/426c94dd-943f-4caa-9a66-1255463d0c11-160706113328/75/UK_RAS_WP_SR25yr_web-9-2048.jpg)
![5 // Surgical Robotics // The Next 25 Years
THE STORY OF ZEUS
In 1989, Yulun Wang founded his
medical robotics company Computer
Motion with funding from the U.S.
government and private sources. The
robotic system he developed for NASA
as a graduate student at the University
of California Santa Barbara became
the seed for the AESOP, which was
FDA approved for use in 1994. In
October 2001, the FDA also cleared
the ZEUS surgical system, just a few
months after the da Vinci®. In 2002,
competition between Intuitive Surgical
and Computer Motion began to
mount fiercely, as the market became
ready to embrace surgical robotic
technology. After some complicated
IP disputes, on March 7, 2003 the
two companies announced that "they
are merging into one company that
combines their strengths in operative
surgical robotics, telesurgery, and
operating room integration, to
better serve hospitals, doctors and
patients."After the merger, the Zeus
was discontinued.
Recent innovations
Following the success of da Vinci®, research and
development by academia and start-ups intensified.
Flexible snake-like and microrobotic platforms are emerging
and are expected to further improve surgical outcomes and
blur the boundaries between prevention and intervention
[Vitiello et al., 2013; Bergeles and Yang, 2014].
The next 25 years
Surgical robotics is acknowledged worldwide as a
technological field primed for investment, where major
breakthroughs are expected. The future will be defined by
developments in two disparate yet interconnected settings:
the research front and commercial organisations. On the
one hand, research and development within academic
institutions is expected to intensify and innovative solutions
for patient benefit will continue to appear. On the other hand,
economic sustainability and societal demand require a revisit
of institutional pillars that govern clinical translation. After all,
despite the staggering amount of work, very few systems
have seen clinical translation, and the penetration of robotic
surgery and systems has been inhomogeneous.
Leveraging insights from the past developments and current
situation, this article attempts to lay out the challenges that
need to be addressed to further support clinical translation
of surgical robot technology, currently a worldwide
phenomenon (see Fig.3).](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/426c94dd-943f-4caa-9a66-1255463d0c11-160706113328/75/UK_RAS_WP_SR25yr_web-10-2048.jpg)
![7 // Surgical Robotics // The Next 25 Years
REGULATORY CHALLENGES:
Unified directives in a
common market
Robotic surgery affects more and more
patients and disrupts the healthcare
system. Contrary to industrial robotics
that could be seen as an insular
research-and-development area
confined to product making, the
proximity of surgical robotics to the
human invoked serious regulatory
intervention from the field’s onset.
The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA, USA), undertook regulatory
measures for medical devices already
in 1976, establishing the fundamental
concepts of safe operation of devices
that interact directly with the human
body. In 1984, United States Congress
decided the support of healthcare
robotics [Engelhardt et al., 1986].
The top-down guidelines by Congress
and FDA untapped the huge
economically profitable market of the
United States, with all interested parties
being aware that health regulations
and economic opportunities span the
entirety of the national market. This
granted stability to United States’
based companies and the possibility
to expand to a large wealthy market
without unexpected hurdles.
In comparison, early endeavours in
the United Kingdom, and Europe in
general, were not able to capitalise
on such a streamlining. European
Union (EU) has only recently regulated
the medical device sector among its
member states, and only in the past
two decades has the notion of a
single market become a reality. Early
pioneering work on surgical robotics
could not attract the significant
CONSISTENT REGULATIONS AND PATIENT EMPOWERING](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/426c94dd-943f-4caa-9a66-1255463d0c11-160706113328/75/UK_RAS_WP_SR25yr_web-12-2048.jpg)
![Surgical Robotics // The Next 25 Years // 8
investment required also due to a lack
of potential market. With the United
Kingdom’s position within the EU under
negotiation, the loss of a common
regulatory framework and wealthy
market may disrupt capital-intensive
large-scale research and innovation.
Power-to-the-patients
Innovation in surgical robotics is in
several aspects close to undertakings
of the pharmaceutical industry. Hence,
even though the previous subsection
raised the issue of consistent
regulatory standards among the
expanding market, it is important to
also understand that for research and
development to be fruitful, a certain
amount of deregulation is required.
Patients should be informed of
robotic system developments and
be empowered to lobby and share
the risks and benefits of robotic
surgical systems that are currently
under development. The burden of
clinical approval is huge, both time-
wise and financially, and the ease of
access to surgical robots that may
be beneficial should be encouraged.
This is particularly true for future
robotic systems that will entail smart
untethered microrobots that directly
target cancer cells – making them
closer to drugs than robots.
There are lessons to be learned
here from the HIV deregulation that
successfully sped up innovation in
the United States in the early 1990s.
Caution should be advised, however,
not to succumb to libertarian anti-
regulatory sentiments that may put
public health at risk [Perrone, 2014].
Europe and the United States could
draw lessons from Japan, which has
successfully implemented regulations
on a similar scope.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/426c94dd-943f-4caa-9a66-1255463d0c11-160706113328/75/UK_RAS_WP_SR25yr_web-13-2048.jpg)
![9 // Surgical Robotics // The Next 25 Years
The effect of the healthcare system
It is widely accepted that the
healthcare systems of the United
Kingdom/Europe and the United States
have several differences, broadly
summarised in the public orientation of
the former, versus the private approach
of the latter. This differentiation
exposes robotic systems to different
stakeholders, which affected the early
adoption of robotic systems.
For example, wealthy private hospitals
in the United States were able to
acquire the da Vinci® robot primarily
to showcase their technological
proficiency. This drove early adoption
and increased demand for the robot
by hospitals first, and patients second.
The cost of using the robot, further,
could be offloaded directly to the
patients or insurance companies
through increased hospitalisation
and surgical fees.
In contrast, such an approach was
more complex to implement within
the National Health Service (NHS)
structure in United Kingdom. In public-
funded NHS, the cost could not be
offloaded to the patients but would
have to be funded from the national
budget. Hence, early adoption in such
government-regulated health-related
domain is much more challenging.
The effect on healthcare economics
Several studies have demonstrated
that skilled laparoscopic surgeons
are able to deliver outcomes on par
with what is achievable via robotic
surgery. Rather than making proficient
surgeons better, one could argue that
robotic surgery would improve the
overall consistency, safety, and quality.
It would also make long procedures
less strenuous. Any improvements,
however, come at the expense of the
significant capital cost of the robot,
and the recurring cost of the tools
and maintenance, stressing the
already fiscally unsustainable
healthcare systems.
The cost-effectiveness of robotic
surgery, with the da Vinci® as the
case study, has been discussed in
several recent investigations. Studies
also indicate how the cost of such
a system and its usage can be
further reduced [Freschi et al., 2014].
It is understandable for research
intensive development such as the
surgical robots, the need to return,
progressively, the significant initial
investment made in early years. We
argue that it is premature to evaluate
the cost-effectiveness of novel robotic
systems so early in their adoption
phase. Most studies assessing the
financial burden of robotic surgery have
only access to data from interventions
conducted with earlier generation
robotic systems while for a fairer
comparison we should probably wait
until more systems have been adopted
and experience has been gained.
Moreover, it should be understandable
that early adoption is more costly
– this example has been recurring
with technological breakthroughs
throughout history, from telephones to
cars to personal computers. Costs are
driven down as competitors enter the
market and the technology matures.
High-entry level cost
Another challenge that innovation in
surgical robotics faces is the extremely
high cost of entry in the field. This
applies particularly to academic
institutions that need to be backed
through grant funding, but could also
be seen as negatively impacting start-
up companies that need to attract a
significant amount of seed investment.
Successful research and development
of surgical robots, not even accounting
for regulatory overheads, amounts
to several millions. Such levels of
funding are unattainable for entry-
level researchers, particularly under
the current economic climate. We
need national centres of excellence
to embed talented researchers to
establish a critical mass and more
importantly a vibrant eco-system
linking academia and industry,
for addressing some of the major
challenges in surgical robotics.
This issue is analogous to the high cost
(time-wise) of software development
for robotics, which has been largely
disrupted by the Robotics Operating
System (ROS). ROS (www.ros.org)
allows reuse of code and modularity
to a degree previously unprecedented,
and is removing the cost-to-entry for
several research projects.
A similar approach is required
for hardware, and this need has
started to be addressed through
the da Vinci® Research Kit and
the RAVEN™ platform. In essence,
however, these are complete hardware
systems, whereas what the academic
community would really benefit from
is reusable and modular compact
hardware components and open
source hardware platforms. Existing
endeavours such as OpenBionics
(www.openbionics.org) and Yale
OpenHand (www.eng.yale.edu/
grablab/openhand) for rehabilitation
and bionics should be encouraged and
looked upon for inspiration.
ROBOTIC SURGERY AND HEALTH ECONOMICS
ECONOMIC CHALLENGES:](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/426c94dd-943f-4caa-9a66-1255463d0c11-160706113328/75/UK_RAS_WP_SR25yr_web-14-2048.jpg)
![Surgical Robotics // The Next 25 Years // 10
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
One important aspect to consider
when discussing intellectual property
(IP) rights is the wealth of industrial
patents that are unrealised or
unrealisable. The patentscape is
slowly morphing into a collection of
proposed systems and mechanisms
that are not intended for realisation.
This dilutes the meaning of “invention
protection”, and poses risks to future
businesses by essentially creating a
“patent minefield” that may hinder
capitalisation of innovation.
The academic vs. industrial
approach
The importance of IP protection is
exemplified by the different routes
that Robodoc and Acrobot have taken.
As our featured stories demonstrate,
Robodoc has found its market through
Curexo Technologies, whereas Acrobot
has seen a series of takeovers. While
there are multiple factors behind this,
in his recent opinion paper [Davies,
2015], Dr. Davies raises limited
intellectual property protection as
one of the main reasons.
One may argue that this case
demonstrates fundamental differences
between IP protection in academia
and industry. The limited funds that
academia possesses for patents,
together with a rigidity in licensing
patents to new start-up companies,
can be a reason behind the lack
of patents and the raised risk that
Acrobot faced. Robodoc, on the
other hand, having the support of
a patent-oriented company, ended
up being much more protected
against competition. Thus, aggressive
patenting seems like a prerequisite
for successful commercialisation.
PATENTING VS OPEN INVENTION](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/426c94dd-943f-4caa-9a66-1255463d0c11-160706113328/75/UK_RAS_WP_SR25yr_web-15-2048.jpg)
![SMA robot
Desai et al.
Hyperredundant robot
Choset et al.
i-snake®
Yang et al.
Active capsule
Dario et al.
Acrobot
Davies et al.
Steady-hand
Taylor et al.
Concentric tubes
Dupont et al.,
Webster et al.
Single-port da Vinci®
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. et al.
Intravascular microbot
Martel et al.
11 // Surgical Robotics // The Next 25 Years
FIGURE 4:
Examples of surgical robot specialisation (adapted from [Bergeles et al., 2014]).](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/426c94dd-943f-4caa-9a66-1255463d0c11-160706113328/75/UK_RAS_WP_SR25yr_web-16-2048.jpg)
Uploaded byValentina Vitiello
UK_RAS_WP_SR25yr_web
This document discusses the past, present, and future of surgical robotics. It describes how surgical robotics has evolved over the past 25 years from a niche research field to a major area of medical innovation. Early surgical robots like ROBODOC and Acrobot paved the way, while the da Vinci system became the global market leader. The document looks at challenges regarding regulation, intellectual property, and litigation that must be addressed for surgical robotics to continue advancing. It projects how new, smaller, safer robotic platforms may help transform precision medicine and quality of life.
UK_RAS_WP_SR25yr_web
- 1. UK-RAS White papers ©UK-RAS 2016 Surgical Robotics: The Next 25 Years Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead www.ukras.org
- 2. // Surgical Robotics// The Next 25 Years
- 3. UKRAS.ORG Surgical Robotics //The Next 25 Years //
- 4. // Surgical Robotics// The Next 25 Years Welcome to the UK-RAS White Paper Series on Robotics and Autonomous Systems (RAS). This is one of the core activities of UK-RAS Network, funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). By bringing together academic centres of excellence, industry, government, funding bodies and charities, the Network provides academic leadership, expands collaboration with industry while integrating and coordinating activities at EPSRC funded RAS capital facilities, Centres for Doctoral Training and partner universities. Medical robots, whether used for minimally invasive surgery, targeted therapy, emergency response, prosthetics or home assistance, represent one of the fastest growing sectors in the medical devices industry. One of the key areas of medical robotics is the development of surgical robots for minimally invasive surgery and microsurgery. In this paper, we look back through the last 25 years at how surgical robotics has evolved from a niche research field to a major area of innovation and development. With improved safety, efficacy and reduced costs, robotic platforms will soon approach a tipping point, moving beyond early adopters to become part of the mainstream surgical practice. These platforms will also drive the future of precision surgery, with a greater focus on early intervention and quality of life after treatment. We also project forward, on how this relatively young yet rapidly expanding field may reshape the future of medicine, as well as the associated technical, commercial, regulatory, and economic challenges that need to be overcome. The UK-RAS white papers are intended to serve as a basis for discussing the future technological roadmaps, engaging the wider community and stakeholders, as well as policy makers in assessing the potential social, economic and ethical/legal impact of RAS. It is our plan to provide annual updates for these white papers so your feedback is essential - whether it be pointing out inadvertent omission of specific areas of development that need to covered, or major future trends that deserve further debate and in-depth analysis. Please direct all your feedback to white- [email protected]. We look forward to hearing from you! Prof Guang-Zhong Yang, FREng Chair, UK-RAS Network on behalf of the UK-RAS Network, established to provide academic leadership, expand collaboration with industry while integrating and coordinating activities at EPSRC funded RAS capital facilities, Centres for Doctoral Training and partner universities. SURGICAL ROBOTICS FOREWORD Prof. Guang-Zhong Yang Dr. Christos Bergeles Dr. Valentina Vitiello
- 5. Surgical Robotics //The Next 25 Years // CONTENTS 2 From Research to Patients 7 Regulatory Challenges 9 Economic Challenges 10 Intellectual Property 12 Future Surgical Robots 13 Roadmap for the Future 14 Conclusions 14 References 15 Appendix A 16 Appendix B
- 6. 1 // SurgicalRobotics // The Next 25 Years Surgical robotics has evolved from a niche research field 25 years ago to a burgeoning area of innovation and development, spearheading evolution in precision medicine, personalised healthcare, and quality- of-life improvements. The commercial success of the first generation clinical robotic systems has inspired an ever-increasing number of platforms from both commercial and research organisations, resulting in smaller, safer, and smarter devices that aspire to roam the human body and blur the lines of disease prediction and prevention. For such endeavours to be clinically successful, challenges relating to not only research, but also regulation, intellectual property protection, and potential aggressive litigation need to be addressed.
- 7. Surgical Robotics //The Next 25 Years // 2 PIONEERS AND EARLY ADOPTERS It was just over 25 years ago that researchers first attempted to improve surgical outcome by using robotic technology, which had been slowly gaining acceptance as a powerful tool for precise automation. Indeed, the first surgical robot was a lightly customised industrial manipulator that was re-purposed to direct a needle into the brain [Kwoh et al., 1988]. Early ventures The first well-known surgical robots, ROBODOC® [Kazanzides et al., 1992] and Acrobot [Davies et al., 1997] for orthopaedic surgery, and Probot [Harris et al., 1997] for prostate surgery, initiated from similar design considerations prior to evolving into customised surgical platforms. ROBODOC® was developed in the United States by Taylor et al., while Probot and Acrobot were developed in the United Kingdom by Davies et al. Our vignettes illustrate the parallel but different stories of Acrobot and ROBODOC®, despite both systems being contemporary and developed in countries of similar economic and social backgrounds. These efforts led to a multitude of academic centres and research institutions undertaking research in the field of surgical robotics. FROM RESEARCH TO PATIENTS: The story of ROBODOC® Initial research on ROBODOC® began through collaboration of University of California, Davis, and IBM Thomas J. Watson Centre. First clinical trials took place in 1992. Commercialisation of ROBODOC® begun in Europe already in 1994, but the robot was withdrawn from the market. In 2007, Korean Curexo acquired ROBODOC® and completed clinical trials in the United States. ROBODOC® acquired FDA clearance in 2008, and is currently used as a branded system worldwide.
- 8. 3 // SurgicalRobotics // The Next 25 Years FIGURE 1. Fig. 1: Timeline of surgical technology development (adapted from [Vitiello et al., 2013]).The story of Acrobot The development of Acrobot (Active Constraint Robot) by Dr Brian Davies at Imperial College London started in 1992. In 2000, Dr Davies founded Acrobot Ltd as a spin-off company with the help of Imperial Innovations. The first clinical trials took place in 2001, with the first randomised trial in 2006. The company was then acquired by Stanmore Implants Worldwide (SIW) in 2010. In 2011, SIW obtained a 510K license to use the Acrobot robot in USA. Shortly after, Mako Surgical bought all the Acrobot patents and technology. Finally, in 2013 Stryker Medical acquired Mako. 1860's Antiseptic surgery 1890's Image guided surgery Open Surgery 2000's NOTES 2010's da Vinci® Single Site™ 2010's Magellan™ robotic catheter system 2010's Flexible NOTES platforms Flexible Access Surgery 1990's da Vinci® surgical system 2000's Transcontinental robotic telesurgery 2000's Sensei™ robotic catheter system 2010's Micro-robots 2010's Flexible platforms for microsurgery Minimally Invasive Surgery Robotic Surgery Robotic Microsurgery 1950's Hopkins rod lens endoscope 1960's Angioplasty 1960's Fibre-optic flexible endoscope 1980's Laparoscopic surgery 1860s 1890s 1950s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2000s 2010s 2010s 2016s
- 9. Surgical Robotics //The Next 25 Years // 4 FIGURE 2: Surgical procedures conducted by the da Vinci® worldwide (TOP), number of systems sold as of 31st of December 2015 (MIDDLE) and company financial data in million dollars (BOTTOM) (data from the Intuitive Surgical 2015 Annual Report, available at www.intuitivesurgical.com). 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Urology General surgery OtherGynaecology 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Revenue Gross profit Net income 2010 2012 2013 2014 20152011 USA Europe Asia Rest of the world 2399 608 423 167 2015 14% Growth Minimally invasive surgery In parallel to the pioneering integration of robotics in orthopaedics and neurosurgery, Hopkins’ rod lens transformed the early developments of laparoscopic surgery. However, these procedures are ergonomically difficult to perform due to the use of long, rigid instruments, coupled with the fulcrum effect and misalignment of visual-motor axes (see Fig 1). Augmentation of surgical skills was thus sought in robotics, building on the early research on tele- manipulation, millimetre-scale tendon-driven wrists, and hardware-based remote centres of motion (RCM) resulted in two innovative platforms: the Zeus by Computer Motion [Ghodoussi et al., 2002], and the da Vinci® from Intuitive Surgical [Guthart and Salisbury, 2000]. The first version of the da Vinci® and Zeus tele-operated systems featured a surgeon master console and a patient slave manipulator with three arms, two for tissue manipulation and one for endoscopic camera positioning. Each arm could provide 6 degrees-of-freedom plus the instrument actuation, while respecting the RCM constraint at the tool entry point on the patient skin. A key difference between the two robots was the use of voice control commands to actuate the camera arm of the Zeus, also known as the AESOP (Automated Endoscopic System for Optimal Positioning) robotic system. The Zeus system was used to perform the first transatlantic telesurgery between Manhattan, New York, USA and Strasbourg, France [Marescaux et al., 2001], but is no longer in production since the merging of Computer Motion with Intuitive Surgical in 2003. On the other hand, the da Vinci® system quickly expanded in the United States and eventually became a global market leader (see Fig. 2).
- 10. 5 // SurgicalRobotics // The Next 25 Years THE STORY OF ZEUS In 1989, Yulun Wang founded his medical robotics company Computer Motion with funding from the U.S. government and private sources. The robotic system he developed for NASA as a graduate student at the University of California Santa Barbara became the seed for the AESOP, which was FDA approved for use in 1994. In October 2001, the FDA also cleared the ZEUS surgical system, just a few months after the da Vinci®. In 2002, competition between Intuitive Surgical and Computer Motion began to mount fiercely, as the market became ready to embrace surgical robotic technology. After some complicated IP disputes, on March 7, 2003 the two companies announced that "they are merging into one company that combines their strengths in operative surgical robotics, telesurgery, and operating room integration, to better serve hospitals, doctors and patients."After the merger, the Zeus was discontinued. Recent innovations Following the success of da Vinci®, research and development by academia and start-ups intensified. Flexible snake-like and microrobotic platforms are emerging and are expected to further improve surgical outcomes and blur the boundaries between prevention and intervention [Vitiello et al., 2013; Bergeles and Yang, 2014]. The next 25 years Surgical robotics is acknowledged worldwide as a technological field primed for investment, where major breakthroughs are expected. The future will be defined by developments in two disparate yet interconnected settings: the research front and commercial organisations. On the one hand, research and development within academic institutions is expected to intensify and innovative solutions for patient benefit will continue to appear. On the other hand, economic sustainability and societal demand require a revisit of institutional pillars that govern clinical translation. After all, despite the staggering amount of work, very few systems have seen clinical translation, and the penetration of robotic surgery and systems has been inhomogeneous. Leveraging insights from the past developments and current situation, this article attempts to lay out the challenges that need to be addressed to further support clinical translation of surgical robot technology, currently a worldwide phenomenon (see Fig.3).
- 11. Aeon Scientific Hitachi Olympus Accuray Applied Dexterity AurisSurgical Avra Surgical Robotics Blue Belt Catheter Robotics Corindus Vascular Robotics CyberHeart Hansen Medical Intuitive Surgical Magnetecs Medrobotics Restoration Robotics Stereotaxis Stryker Think Surgical TransEnterix Biobot Surgical MeerecompanyCambridge Medical Robotics Covidien Surgical Freehand Renishaw Mazor Robotics Microbot Medical Dexterite Surgical EndoControl MedTech Rob Surgical Systems IBA Therapies Sofar/Alf-x Surgica Robotica Elekta Aktormed Neurostar Trumf-med IMRIS Titan Medical Surgical Robotics // The Next 25 Years // 6 FIGURE 3: Example surgical robotics companies worldwide: Americas (left), Europe and Middle East (middle), Asia (right) (data from www.therobotreport.com, www.allaboutroboticsurgery.com and www.surgrob.blogspot.com).
- 12. 7 // SurgicalRobotics // The Next 25 Years REGULATORY CHALLENGES: Unified directives in a common market Robotic surgery affects more and more patients and disrupts the healthcare system. Contrary to industrial robotics that could be seen as an insular research-and-development area confined to product making, the proximity of surgical robotics to the human invoked serious regulatory intervention from the field’s onset. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, USA), undertook regulatory measures for medical devices already in 1976, establishing the fundamental concepts of safe operation of devices that interact directly with the human body. In 1984, United States Congress decided the support of healthcare robotics [Engelhardt et al., 1986]. The top-down guidelines by Congress and FDA untapped the huge economically profitable market of the United States, with all interested parties being aware that health regulations and economic opportunities span the entirety of the national market. This granted stability to United States’ based companies and the possibility to expand to a large wealthy market without unexpected hurdles. In comparison, early endeavours in the United Kingdom, and Europe in general, were not able to capitalise on such a streamlining. European Union (EU) has only recently regulated the medical device sector among its member states, and only in the past two decades has the notion of a single market become a reality. Early pioneering work on surgical robotics could not attract the significant CONSISTENT REGULATIONS AND PATIENT EMPOWERING
- 13. Surgical Robotics //The Next 25 Years // 8 investment required also due to a lack of potential market. With the United Kingdom’s position within the EU under negotiation, the loss of a common regulatory framework and wealthy market may disrupt capital-intensive large-scale research and innovation. Power-to-the-patients Innovation in surgical robotics is in several aspects close to undertakings of the pharmaceutical industry. Hence, even though the previous subsection raised the issue of consistent regulatory standards among the expanding market, it is important to also understand that for research and development to be fruitful, a certain amount of deregulation is required. Patients should be informed of robotic system developments and be empowered to lobby and share the risks and benefits of robotic surgical systems that are currently under development. The burden of clinical approval is huge, both time- wise and financially, and the ease of access to surgical robots that may be beneficial should be encouraged. This is particularly true for future robotic systems that will entail smart untethered microrobots that directly target cancer cells – making them closer to drugs than robots. There are lessons to be learned here from the HIV deregulation that successfully sped up innovation in the United States in the early 1990s. Caution should be advised, however, not to succumb to libertarian anti- regulatory sentiments that may put public health at risk [Perrone, 2014]. Europe and the United States could draw lessons from Japan, which has successfully implemented regulations on a similar scope.
- 14. 9 // SurgicalRobotics // The Next 25 Years The effect of the healthcare system It is widely accepted that the healthcare systems of the United Kingdom/Europe and the United States have several differences, broadly summarised in the public orientation of the former, versus the private approach of the latter. This differentiation exposes robotic systems to different stakeholders, which affected the early adoption of robotic systems. For example, wealthy private hospitals in the United States were able to acquire the da Vinci® robot primarily to showcase their technological proficiency. This drove early adoption and increased demand for the robot by hospitals first, and patients second. The cost of using the robot, further, could be offloaded directly to the patients or insurance companies through increased hospitalisation and surgical fees. In contrast, such an approach was more complex to implement within the National Health Service (NHS) structure in United Kingdom. In public- funded NHS, the cost could not be offloaded to the patients but would have to be funded from the national budget. Hence, early adoption in such government-regulated health-related domain is much more challenging. The effect on healthcare economics Several studies have demonstrated that skilled laparoscopic surgeons are able to deliver outcomes on par with what is achievable via robotic surgery. Rather than making proficient surgeons better, one could argue that robotic surgery would improve the overall consistency, safety, and quality. It would also make long procedures less strenuous. Any improvements, however, come at the expense of the significant capital cost of the robot, and the recurring cost of the tools and maintenance, stressing the already fiscally unsustainable healthcare systems. The cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery, with the da Vinci® as the case study, has been discussed in several recent investigations. Studies also indicate how the cost of such a system and its usage can be further reduced [Freschi et al., 2014]. It is understandable for research intensive development such as the surgical robots, the need to return, progressively, the significant initial investment made in early years. We argue that it is premature to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of novel robotic systems so early in their adoption phase. Most studies assessing the financial burden of robotic surgery have only access to data from interventions conducted with earlier generation robotic systems while for a fairer comparison we should probably wait until more systems have been adopted and experience has been gained. Moreover, it should be understandable that early adoption is more costly – this example has been recurring with technological breakthroughs throughout history, from telephones to cars to personal computers. Costs are driven down as competitors enter the market and the technology matures. High-entry level cost Another challenge that innovation in surgical robotics faces is the extremely high cost of entry in the field. This applies particularly to academic institutions that need to be backed through grant funding, but could also be seen as negatively impacting start- up companies that need to attract a significant amount of seed investment. Successful research and development of surgical robots, not even accounting for regulatory overheads, amounts to several millions. Such levels of funding are unattainable for entry- level researchers, particularly under the current economic climate. We need national centres of excellence to embed talented researchers to establish a critical mass and more importantly a vibrant eco-system linking academia and industry, for addressing some of the major challenges in surgical robotics. This issue is analogous to the high cost (time-wise) of software development for robotics, which has been largely disrupted by the Robotics Operating System (ROS). ROS (www.ros.org) allows reuse of code and modularity to a degree previously unprecedented, and is removing the cost-to-entry for several research projects. A similar approach is required for hardware, and this need has started to be addressed through the da Vinci® Research Kit and the RAVEN™ platform. In essence, however, these are complete hardware systems, whereas what the academic community would really benefit from is reusable and modular compact hardware components and open source hardware platforms. Existing endeavours such as OpenBionics (www.openbionics.org) and Yale OpenHand (www.eng.yale.edu/ grablab/openhand) for rehabilitation and bionics should be encouraged and looked upon for inspiration. ROBOTIC SURGERY AND HEALTH ECONOMICS ECONOMIC CHALLENGES:
- 15. Surgical Robotics //The Next 25 Years // 10 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY One important aspect to consider when discussing intellectual property (IP) rights is the wealth of industrial patents that are unrealised or unrealisable. The patentscape is slowly morphing into a collection of proposed systems and mechanisms that are not intended for realisation. This dilutes the meaning of “invention protection”, and poses risks to future businesses by essentially creating a “patent minefield” that may hinder capitalisation of innovation. The academic vs. industrial approach The importance of IP protection is exemplified by the different routes that Robodoc and Acrobot have taken. As our featured stories demonstrate, Robodoc has found its market through Curexo Technologies, whereas Acrobot has seen a series of takeovers. While there are multiple factors behind this, in his recent opinion paper [Davies, 2015], Dr. Davies raises limited intellectual property protection as one of the main reasons. One may argue that this case demonstrates fundamental differences between IP protection in academia and industry. The limited funds that academia possesses for patents, together with a rigidity in licensing patents to new start-up companies, can be a reason behind the lack of patents and the raised risk that Acrobot faced. Robodoc, on the other hand, having the support of a patent-oriented company, ended up being much more protected against competition. Thus, aggressive patenting seems like a prerequisite for successful commercialisation. PATENTING VS OPEN INVENTION
- 16. SMA robot Desai etal. Hyperredundant robot Choset et al. i-snake® Yang et al. Active capsule Dario et al. Acrobot Davies et al. Steady-hand Taylor et al. Concentric tubes Dupont et al., Webster et al. Single-port da Vinci® Intuitive Surgical, Inc. et al. Intravascular microbot Martel et al. 11 // Surgical Robotics // The Next 25 Years FIGURE 4: Examples of surgical robot specialisation (adapted from [Bergeles et al., 2014]).
- 17. Surgical Robotics //The Next 25 Years // 12 FUTURE SURGICAL ROBOTS: Smaller, smarter, safer devices Surgical robotics research is evolving towards the development of platforms for performing specific parts of the surgical workflow when robotic assistance is required, rather than following the more “traditional” approach of using a fully- fledged system to cover an entire surgical procedure (see Fig. 4). This follows the general trend of surgical robotics - in future less likely will we see the development of ever larger and more expensive platforms as we become more rational about the general access of technology for the population at large, the cost-effectiveness of these systems, and the tangible clinical benefit of robotic assistance. Future clinical attention will likely be paid to the development of smart, miniaturised, mechatronically enhanced or robotically assisted surgical instruments. Such smart instruments will be integrated with advanced imaging and sensing techniques, combined with instrumentation passed through the device for performing early diagnosis and interventions. Augmented vision, perception and control Computer-assistance has been developing alongside mechatronic advances in surgical robotics to improve the surgeon’s experience by providing immersive visualisation, stereoscopic high-definition images and intraoperative feedback through different perceptual channels. The senses of vision and touch, which are severely affected by the laparoscopic approach, are now returned to the minimally invasive surgeon in an augmented fashion, resulting in safer and more accurate procedures. Augmented reality techniques in combination with haptic feedback and active constraints (or virtual fixtures) are transforming surgical guidance into perceptually-enabled cooperative control, where the surgeon and the robot effectively share command of the tool. As computational resources become more powerful, the fusion of information from a plethora of sensors makes the robot more and more aware of the surgical environment and can potentially allow the surgeon to take full advantage of robotic-assistance by letting the robot perform autonomously high-accuracy repetitive sub-tasks under supervision. Cellular-level intervention Future surgical robots will interact with pathology sites at microscopic levels, either to perform surgery through miniature end-effectors, or as untethered agents that locally deliver highly concentrated drugs without system side effects. As robot development advances towards the micro and nanoscale, clinicians, engineers, and molecular biologists will have to join forces and combine their domain specific knowledge to operate at these scales, employing, for example, biomarkers to assist in robot targeting and electromagnetic energy absorption. Robot development will combine mechatronics, physics, and chemistry potentially to assist the immune system in identifying and fighting tumours. Non-invasive approaches Non-invasive electromagnetic radiation therapies such as focused ultrasound or proton beams may disrupt the surgical robotics market even before this market has been established. Further competitive solutions may arrive from the pharmaceutics field, with antibody-based tumour targeting methods. As a result, it is important that surgical robots seek to establish their area also outside of “traditional” tumour resection, as, for example, in reconstructive neuron surgery for paraplegia, and prosthetic limb implantation. Many countries worldwide have realised the anthropocentric potential of surgical robotics and the centralised support that innovation requires, and have laid down roadmaps for research and development, accompanied by commitments for significant financial support. In the following, we examine and compare two existing roadmaps. BLURRING PREVENTION AND TREATMENT
- 18. 13 // SurgicalRobotics // The Next 25 Years ROADMAPS FOR THE FUTURE: The dichotomy between US and UK approaches to surgical robotics research is clearly represented by the respective recently published roadmap documents. While US recommendations aim at tackling the technical challenges that still limit the capabilities of commercial surgical robots, as, for example, tactile sensing, better immersion of the surgeon, detailed anatomical roadmaps, and navigation in confined spaces, the guidelines from UK are fundamentally market-driven with a focus on cost effectiveness and regulatory standards. Notably, the European Union approach strives to address both research and translational issues by promoting academic and industrial collaborations and leading innovative research to technology transfer. We believe that the latter is the most favourable attitude for shaping the future of surgical robotics and encouraging clinical translation of promising technology. After all, as already discussed, without significant governmental seed funding, several of the innovations that sparked the surgical robotics revolution would not have been possible. Nonetheless, the number of issues that have been identified pertaining to institutional complexities need to be addressed. Tackling research challenges As highlighted above, the main factors influencing the successful integration of robotics research in surgical practice are arguably high costs, a lack of institutional coordination and the absence of modular, open-source hardware platforms. Research funds are limited and often insufficient to ensure the prototype robustness necessary for safe deployment of novel technologies into the operating theatre. Understandably, entrepreneurs are reluctant to invest large capital sums into the commercialization of early stage prototypes. Recent EU funding schemes such as Horizon 2020 are attempting to address this issue by encouraging collaboration of academic and industrial partners at the early stage of project proposal. Overcoming translational barriers Regulatory standards and IP protection are core elements of the UK roadmap, which are also considered crucial for successful technology transfer by the European Union. However, the lack of a standardised framework for surgical robot benchmarking remains a major hurdle in the creation of an open worldwide market. Regulatory bodies should work together towards a common agenda for robotic surgery based on clinical evidence and patient benefits. One crucial point of such agenda should be the identification of appropriate economic and clinical comparators. As an example, robotic-assisted procedures are usually compared to the corresponding laparoscopic approach, which in some markets still has limited adoption for certain procedures. In such cases, robotic technology has the potential to make the minimally invasive approach more accessible, thus making open surgery a better comparator. Finally, surgical expertise plays a crucial role in obtaining a fair comparison between robotic-assisted and traditional surgery. Educational portfolios are just starting to include robotics as part of standard training for surgeons and learning curves can vary according to the version of the robotic system used. Standardization of surgical training programs thus becomes fundamental for generating a cohort of expert robotic surgeons that could validate the benefits of robotic-assistance in the surgical theatre of the future. SHAPING RESEARCH AND TRANSLATION
- 19. Surgical Robotics //The Next 25 Years // 14 In the past 25 years surgical robotics has evolved from a specialised field to a worldwide phenomenon of technological innovation. Initial systems were complex, high in cost and with a large footprint in the operative theatre. Nowadays research focus is moving to simpler, low-cost, sensor-rich devices designed for a few specific applications. In the next 25 years, it is envisioned that robotic surgery will become more clinically relevant, but only if cost-effectiveness and tangible clinical benefits are demonstrated. On this basis, surgical robots for tumour resection may actually be disrupted by targeted therapies and early intervention. Most importantly, tackling issues such as regulatory standards and IP protection will play a crucial role in the successful clinical translation of robotic technology. CONCLUSIONS Bergeles C., and G.-Z. Yang, “From passive tool holders to microsurgeons: safer, smaller, smarter surgical robots,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 1565-1576, 2014. Davies B. L., W. J. Lin and R. D. Hibberd, “Active compliance in robotic surgery – the use of force control as a dynamic constraint,” Proc Inst Mech Eng H J Eng Med, vol. 211, pp. 285–292, 1997. Davies B. L., “Robotic surgery – a personal view of the past, present, and future,” Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst., vol. 15, no. 54, pp. 1-6, 2015. Engelhardt K. G., “Current status and future prospect for robotic technology in health care delivery,” Centr. Nerv. Syst. Trauma, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 111–126, 1986. Freschi C., V. Ferrari, F. Melf, M. Ferrari, F. Mosca, and A. Cuschieri, “Technical review of the da Vinci surgical telemanipulator,” Int. J. Med. Robot. Comp., vol. 9, no. 4, pp 396–406, 2013. Ghodoussi, M., S. E. Butner, Y. Wang, "Robotic surgery - the transatlantic case," IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol.2, pp.1882-1888, 2002. Guthart G. S. and J. K. Salisbury Jr., “The IntuitiveTM telesurgery system: overview and application,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 618–621, 2000. Harris S. J., F. Arambula-Cosio, Q. Mei, R. D. Hibberd, B. L. Davies, J. E. A. Wickham, M. S. Nathan and B. Kundu, “The Probot – an active robot for prostate resection,” Proc Inst Mech Eng H: J Eng Med, vol. 211, pp. 317–325, 1997. Kazanzides P., J. Zuhars, B. Mittelstadt, B. Williamson, P. Cain, F. Smith, L. Rose and B. Musits, “Architecture of a surgical robot,” IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 1624–1629, 1992. Kwoh Y. S., J. Hou, E. A. Jonckheere, and S. Hayati, “A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 153–160, Feb. 1988. Marescaux J., J. Leroy, M. Gagner, F. Rubino, D. Mutter, M. Vix, S. E. Butner and M. K. Smith, “Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery,” Nature, vol. 413, pp. 379–380, 2001. Perrone M., “AIDS activist now fights for FDA,” Associated Press, August 11th 2014. Vitiello V., S.-L. Lee, T. P. Cundy and G.-Z. Yang, “Emerging robotic platforms for minimally invasive surgery,” IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng., vol. 6, pp. 111-126, 2013. REFERENCES
- 20. 15 // SurgicalRobotics // The Next 25 Years APPENDIX A Table 1. Companies with commercial platforms for robotic surgery. Company Name Clinical Application Reference Accuray Proton therapy www.accuray.com Aeon Scientific Vascular surgery www.aeon-scientific.com Alf-X by Sofar Laparoscopy www.alf-x.com Applied Dexterity Laparoscopy www.applieddexterity.com Auris Surgical Robotics Laparoscopy www.aurisrobotics.com AVRA Surgical Robotics Laparoscopy www.avrasurgicalrobotics.com Biobot Surgical Laparoscopy www.biobotsurgical.com Blue Belt Orthopedics www.bluebelttech.com Cambridge Medical Robotics Laparoscopy www.cmedrobotics.com Catheter Robotics Vascular surgery www.catheterrobotics.com Corindus Vascular Robotics Vascular surgery www.corindus.com Covidien Surgical Laparoscopy www.covidien.com/covidien Curexo Technologies Orthopedics www.thinksurgical.com CyberHeart Proton therapy www.cyberheartinc.com EndoControl Endoluminal surgery www.endocontrol-medical.com Freehand Laparoscopy www.freehandsurgeon.com Hansen Medical Vascular surgery www.hansenmedical.com IBA Proton therapy www.iba-protontherapy.com Intuitive Surgical Laparoscopy www.intuitivesurgical.com Magnetecs Vascular surgery www.magnetecs.com Mako Surgical Orthopedics www.makosurgical.com Mazor Robotics Spine surgery www.mazorrobotics.com Medrobotics Endoluminal surgery www.medrobotics.com Medtech Neurosurgery www.medtech.fr Meercompany Laparoscopy www.meerecompany.com OMNI Orthopedics www.omnils.com Renishaw Neurosurgery www.renishaw.com Restoration Robotics Hair transplantation www.restorationrobotics.com Rob Surgical Systems Laparoscopy www.robsurgical.com Stereotaxis Vascular surgery www.stereotaxis.com Surgica Robotica Laparoscopy www.surgicarobotica.com Titan Medical Laparoscopy www.titanmedicalinc.com TransEnterix Laparoscopy www.transenterix.com Varian Medical Systems Proton therapy www.varian.com
- 21. Surgical Robotics //The Next 25 Years // 16 APPENDIX B Table 2. Examples of emerging platforms for robotic surgery. Platform Name Clinical Application Institution Reference Active catheter Vascular surgery University of Western Ontario, Canada Jayender J. et al., 2008 ARAKNES Single-access surgery Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Italy Tortora G. et al., 2014 Catheter operating system Vascular surgery Kagawa University, Japan Guo S. et al., 2007 Concentric tubes Vascular surgery Boston Children’s Hospital/ Dupont P. et al., 2010 Prostate surgery Harvard Medical School, USA Webster R. et al., 2009 Vanderbilt University, USA Force feedback Vascular surgery Imperial College London, UK Payne C. J. et al., 2012 system for endovascular catheterisation Gift-Surg Single-access surgery University College London, UK Devreker A. et al., 2015 KU Leuven, Belgium HapCath-System Vascular surgery Darmstadt University of Technology, Germany Meiss T. et al., 2009 HARP Cardiac surgery Carnegie Mellon University, USA Ota T. et al., 2009 HVSPS Endoluminal surgery Munich Technological University, Germany Can S. et al., 2012 IREP Single-access surgery Vanderbilt University, USA Bajo A. et al., 2012 i-Snake® Single-access surgery Imperial College London, UK Shang J. et al., 2012 iTrem Microsurgery Nanyang Technol. University, Singapore Latt W. T. et al., 2009 MASTER Endoluminal surgery Nanyang Technological University, Singapore Phee S. J. et al., 2010 Micro-IGES Endoluminal surgery Imperial College London, UK King H. et al., 2015 Micron Ophthalmic surgery Carnegie Mellon University, USA Riviere C. et al., 2003 MicroTactus Microsurgery McGill University, Canada Yao H.-Y. et al., 2006 Miniature robots Single-access surgery University of Nebraska Medical Center, USA Farritor S. M. et al., 2011 MRI-steerable catheter Vascular surgery Ecole Polytechnique Federal de Montreal, Canada Gosellin F. P. et al., 2011 Octomag Ophthalmic surgery ETH Zurich, Switzerland Ulrich F. et al., 2013 Remote catheter Vascular surgery University of Western Ontario, Canada Thakur Y. et al., 2009 navigation system Robotic catheter system Vascular surgery Harbin Institute of Technology, China Fu Y. et al., 2011 SETA Vascular surgery State University of New York at Buffalo, USA Srimathveeravalli G. et al., 2010 Single port system Single-access surgery Waseda University, Japan Sekiguchi Y. et al., 2011 SPRINT Single-access surgery Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Italy Petroni G. et al., 2013 Steady Hand Ophthalmic surgery Johns Hopkins University, USA Taylor R. et al., 1999 STRAS Endoluminal surgery University of Strasbourg, France De Donno A. et al., 2013 Telesurgery system for Vascular surgery Nagoya University, Japan Tanimoto M. et al., 2000 intravascular neurosurgery ViaCath Endoluminal surgery Purdue University, USA Abbott D. J. et al., 2007 VISR Vascular surgery Beijing University of Aeronautics and Wang T. et al., 2010 Astronautics Robotics Institute, China
- 22. // Surgical Robotics// The Next 25 Years The commercial successes of the first generation clinical robotic systems have inspired an ever-increasing number of platforms from both commercial and research organisations, resulting in smaller, safer, and smarter devices that will underpin the future of precision surgery.
- 23. Surgical Robotics //The Next 25 Years //
- 24.