ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering2025
Democratizing advanced surgical guidance: decoupling the state-of-the-art from tertiary centers and breaking trail for autonomous robotic surgery in austere environments.
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Surgery involves iterative identification of anatomical structures and intervention upon them. In recent years, machine-based tissue recognition has advanced substantially, enhancing the safety and efficacy of medical procedures by reducing uncertainty about structure identity through quantitative evaluation (e.g., tissue density, optical properties, fluorescence contrast). However, while tissue-identifying tools have progressed rapidly, the development of intervention tools has lagged. It is worth considering the eventual convergence of these technologies at their mature stage, culminating in autonomous robotic surgery (ARS). Beyond technical feasibility, deploying such a groundbreaking technology requires careful consideration. Typically, expensive and novel medical advancements are introduced in tertiary academic medical centers, where state-of-the-art infrastructure and trained personnel are available. However, ARS holds the greatest potential for regions lacking access to surgeons, making it crucial to define the optimal scenarios for its implementation. The technical demands of ARS will vary significantly depending on the type of procedure. Decision-making should prioritize a focused set of surgery-requiring conditions and assess the cumulative risk profile of offering ARS in regions with no existing treatment options. Key factors in this evaluation include: 1) procedure commonness; 2) ARS feasibility with current technology; 3) risk of adverse events from a robotic intervention; 4) procedure urgency (i.e., risk of no intervention); 5) risk of abandoning procedure in the setting of technical failure; 6) ability to have remote human oversight; and 7) current availability of resources in the target population/region. Based on these considerations, the initial stabilization of high-energy open skeletal trauma-particularly in active combat military settings-represents a highly feasible and valuable early application. Additionally, the future development of self-sufficient microrobots capable of operating without external imaging could further enhance the portability and accessibility of ARS as the technology matures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40808721PMC12345380What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.