Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 38 references

A Digital Twin for Telesurgery under Intermittent Communication

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper reports a digital twin of a surgical robot that keeps a remote surgeon productive during brief communication outages: buffered inputs are replayed on the real robot at double speed, cutting mean peg-transfer time by 23.6%.

desk verdict Solid digital-twin telesurgery proof-of-concept with a real 23.6% time reduction, but the missing condition-order detail leaves the headline effect open to a practice-effect confound. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13449 v2 pith:3PORQQRS submitted 2024-11-20 cs.RO

Junxiang Wang , Juan Antonio Barragan , Hisashi Ishida , Jingkai Guo , Yu-Chun Ku , Peter Kazanzides This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords telesurgerydigitaltwincommunicationoutagebufferingandreplayaugmentedrealityoverlaydaVinciResearchKitpegtransfertaskteleoperation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a calibrated digital twin of a surgical robot can keep a remote surgeon productive during short communication outages. During an outage, the surgeon's commands drive a virtual robot shown as an overlay on the frozen endoscopic view, and those commands are buffered. When the link returns, the real robot replays the buffer at twice the speed to catch up. In a peg-transfer study with eight users, this replay strategy reduced mean task completion time by 23.6% against the baseline where the surgeon's console locks until the link returns, with p < 0.005. The point is to show that digital twin interaction plus replay is a workable first step toward compensating for communication loss in telesurgery.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a digital twin: a physics-based simulation of the surgical robot's patient-side manipulator, its instrument, the endoscopic camera, and the movable pegs, registered to the real hardware through hand-eye calibration and an environment-registration procedure. During normal operation, the same Cartesian command is sent to both the real and virtual robots through a common teleoperation interface. During an outage, the user commands the twin and the input trajectory is appended to a buffer; on recovery, the buffer is replayed on the real robot at twice the speed by skipping every other sample, so a one-second outage takes half a second to replay. The twin also supplies an augmented-reality overlay of the instrument and grasped peg on the frozen endoscopic image, using a heuristic grasp detection that renders the peg at a fixed location relative to the gripper when it closes near a post.

What would settle it

Measure the Cartesian position error between the real patient-side manipulator and its digital twin during normal teleoperation under the reported registration, or run the peg-transfer task with a deliberately mis-registered twin shifted by a few millimeters. If the replay strategy no longer reduces completion time, or if replaying buffered motions causes missed grasps or collisions with the pegboard, the central benefit is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central empirical discovery is that allowing the surgeon to keep manipulating a digital twin during a communication outage, then replaying the buffered trajectory on the real robot at twice the original speed, yields measurably faster task completion than freezing teleoperation for the duration of the outage. With simulated outages averaging 0.8 seconds and normal communication averaging 3.2 seconds, the mean completion time dropped from 178.6 seconds to 137.0 seconds, a 23.6% reduction, with p < 0.005 in a paired t-test across eight participants. The authors also report lower mean workload on all dimensions of a standard questionnaire, though not statistically significant. They position this as a demonstration that a physics-based digital twin registered to the real system can carry the user through brief outages, while guaranteeing that the real robot follows only user-issued motions rather than autonomous decisions.

Load-bearing premise

The benefit assumes the digital twin tracks the real robot, pegs, and instruments well enough that motions issued to the twin during an outage remain feasible when replayed at double speed on the real robot, which rests on the registration calibration and on the heuristic rule that a grasped peg is rendered at a fixed position relative to the gripper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If communication is lost for short intervals, a surgeon can keep working on the digital twin instead of stopping, and the real robot will catch up after the link returns.
  • Because the replayed buffer contains only user-issued commands, the approach avoids any autonomous action by the system during the outage.
  • The framework accepts any teleoperation device that speaks the same standardized control interface, so alternative input devices can be tested without changing the recovery logic.
  • The measured benefit exceeds the raw outage fraction (23.6% versus 20%), suggesting the baseline's locked-console condition also disrupts the user's workflow after the link returns, not just during the outage.
  • The authors expect the benefit to be larger once the recovery phase can also append new commands and display the overlay, which was disabled in this study due to a system issue.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if the digital twin's tracking error can be measured online, replay speed could be adaptively reduced near high-risk motions or when twin-real divergence grows, making the recovery safer than a fixed double-speed replay.
  • Editorial inference: the 23.6% gain over a locked-console baseline could be separated from simple pause-and-resume effects by testing a third condition where the console unlocks at the same posture after the outage without any replay; this would isolate the benefit of continued manipulation from the benefit of avoiding a restart.
  • Editorial inference: the same buffering and replay architecture could be transferred to other robots that use the same standardized control interface, potentially extending beyond surgery to industrial or field teleoperation with short link dropouts.
  • Editorial inference: the heuristic grasp detection is the most fragile part of the twin's fidelity; replacing it with vision-based peg pose estimation would allow the approach to work in less structured environments, which the authors identify as necessary for realistic surgical tasks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a digital twin of the da Vinci Research Kit (dVRK) built in AMBF, registered to the physical robot, camera, and environment, and interfaced through CRTK. During communication outage, the user teleoperates the twin through an AR overlay, and the buffered command stream is replayed on the real robot at 2x speed after restoration; the baseline strategy locks the master manipulator in place during the outage. The authors report a user study with eight subjects performing a peg transfer task under random outages (mean outage 0.8 s within a 4 s cycle). The replay condition reduced mean task completion time from 178.6 s to 137.0 s (23.6%, p<0.005), with lower NASA-TLX scores that were not statistically significant. The manuscript includes open-source code and detailed calibration procedures.

Significance. If the empirical result survives experimental-control scrutiny, the paper offers a useful and credible demonstration that a calibrated physics-based digital twin plus command replay can mitigate short communication outages in teleoperation. The work leverages openly available frameworks (AMBF, dVRK, CRTK), publishes the implementation, and provides a calibration pipeline for camera and environment registration. The significance is moderated by the small sample of engineering students, the incomplete implementation of the stated replay system, and the absence of reported order or counterbalancing information in the user study.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV-A / Table I] The central empirical claim rests on a within-subject comparison, but the manuscript does not report the order in which participants performed the baseline and replay conditions, whether that order was randomized or counterbalanced, or whether participants received practice trials before data collection. With n=8 and no order control, the 23.6% mean reduction and the p<0.005 t-test could be substantially confounded by learning or task familiarity. Please report the condition order for each subject, the randomization or counterbalancing scheme, and the training protocol; if order was not controlled, the reported effect cannot be attributed to the replay strategy from the current data.
  2. [Sec. IV-A] The disclosed system issue is load-bearing for the headline claim: the experiment omitted buffer appending and the AR overlay during the recovery phase, so the tested replay condition is only a partial implementation of the strategy described in Sec. III-C. The authors state that these changes 'should only have a small negative impact,' but no data support that assertion, and it is also possible that the missing overlay changed user behavior in the opposite direction. Please either present the experiment as evaluating the partial system, add a sensitivity analysis, or provide evidence about the effect of the missing components.
  3. [Sec. III-B / Sec. IV-B] The validity of replaying twin-issued motions on the real robot depends on the accuracy of the digital twin registration, but the paper provides no quantitative accuracy metric for the hand-eye calibration or environment registration, and no error or robustness metrics (e.g., peg drops, failed grasps, or deviation from the replayed trajectory) in the user study. Reporting registration error and task reliability would substantiate the claim that the twin tracks the real system sufficiently for the benefit to transfer beyond this specific setup.
  4. [Sec. III-C] The paper describes the replay as 'skipping every other entry,' which doubles the commanded speed, and then claims that the method 'provides the guarantee that the instrument still follows all the intended motions of the user.' This guarantee is not supported unless the PSM velocity and acceleration limits and the CRTK command rate are explicitly checked. Please add a short analysis of whether the replay preserves the path while respecting the robot's dynamic limits, or qualify the safety claim accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract reports 23% while Table I reports 23.6%; please make the numbers consistent.
  2. [Sec. II] Reference [26] appears twice in the latency-related works paragraph; please deduplicate it.
  3. [Sec. IV-B] State explicitly which t-test was used (paired or unpaired) and report the test statistic, degrees of freedom, and 95% confidence interval for the Table I comparison.
  4. [Table I] Provide standard deviations and per-condition medians; with n=8 and two influential improvements (Users 1 and 6), a non-parametric paired test would strengthen the claim.
  5. [Sec. IV-B / Sec. V] The sentence 'the t-test does not show any statistical significance' is ambiguous, and the discussion phrase 'consistent improvement ... against all metrics' is stronger than the NASA-TLX result, which is not significant.
  6. [Sec. IV-A] Clarify whether the baseline condition displayed the AR overlay or no overlay at all, so that the two conditions differ only in the replay mechanism.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central claim is an empirical hardware comparison with independently measured outcomes.

full rationale

The paper's headline result is a measured 23.6% reduction in mean task completion time for a replay strategy versus a baseline, supported by a t-test (p<0.005) on eight users' recorded completion times in Table I. This outcome is not derived from the digital-twin model or from any fitted parameter; it is an empirical comparison on real dVRK hardware. The digital twin construction involves calibrations (camera intrinsics, hand-eye transform, environment registration) and heuristic grasp detection, but these are inputs to the experiment, not fitted to the task-completion-time outcome. Self-citations appear for infrastructure and prior work: AMBF [31], the PSM model [32], CRTK [34], and an earlier simulation study [16]; these are tooling and experiment-design references that do not by construction produce the measured result. The outage statistics are selected from prior studies including [16], but they are experimental settings rather than the predicted quantity. The known limitation that buffer appending and AR overlay were disabled during recovery is disclosed and would weaken the reported benefit, not tautologically enforce it. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no uniqueness claim or ansatz is imported via self-citation to force the conclusion. Therefore the central claim is self-contained as an experimental finding, and the measured effect, while open to validity concerns such as condition ordering, is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical system comparison, not a mathematical derivation. The main hand-chosen inputs are the outage schedule and the 2x replay speed, both disclosed. The digital twin is not a new physical entity; it is a software assembly of dVRK, AMBF, and CRTK components. The most important unstated burden is that the simulation and grasp heuristics must be accurate enough for replay to be valid, which the paper does not quantify.

free parameters (2)
  • communication outage pattern = normal 3.2 +/- 0.15 s; outage 0.8 +/- 0.1 s
    Chosen based on prior studies [16, 36, 37], not fitted to this result; the measured benefit may depend on this specific schedule.
  • replay speed multiplier = 2x (every other buffered command skipped)
    Hand-selected simple recovery rule; not optimized. The paper proposes variable replay speed as future work.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The calibrated AMBF digital twin accurately mirrors the real PSM, instrument, and camera during and after an outage.
    Invoked in Sec. III-B and III-D; the paper asserts sufficient registration accuracy for AR overlay but does not report quantitative tracking or overlay error.
  • domain assumption The environment is static and known, and grasping can be detected by a heuristic, such as gripper closing near a post.
    Stated in Sec. IV-A; pegs are assumed not to deform, and future vision-based pose estimation is acknowledged.
  • domain assumption Replaying buffered user commands at twice the speed is a valid and safe recovery strategy for short outages in static scenes.
    Stated in Sec. III-C; the paper limits the strategy to relatively static scenes and short outages and notes that dynamic environments may need a different approach.
  • domain assumption The paired comparison is free of order effects that would bias the time reduction.
    The user study in Sec. IV-A does not report counterbalancing or randomization of condition order; if replay was always performed second, learning effects could contribute to the result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Digital Twin for Telesurgery under Intermittent Communication." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3PORQQRS

@misc{pith2026241113449,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Digital Twin for Telesurgery under Intermittent Communication},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3PORQQRS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13449}
}
read the original abstract

Telesurgery is an effective way to deliver service from expert surgeons to areas without immediate access to specialized resources. However, many of these areas, such as rural districts or battlefields, might be subject to different problems in communication, especially latency and intermittent periods of communication outage. This challenge motivates the use of a digital twin for the surgical system, where a simulation would mirror the robot hardware and surgical environment in the real world. The surgeon would then be able to interact with the digital twin during communication outage, followed by a recovery strategy on the real robot upon reestablishing communication. This paper builds the digital twin for the da Vinci surgical robot, with a buffering and replay strategy that reduces the mean task completion time by 23% when compared to the baseline, for a peg transfer task subject to intermittent communication outage. The relevant code can be found here: https://github.com/LCSR-CIIS/dvrk_digital_twin_teleoperation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13449 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our proposed digital twin framework for the da Vinci Research Kit to mitigate task disruptions due to communication losses in telesurgery [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Transformations between different components of the digital [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Peg and board design. Pegs were designed with a countersink to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radar plot with the mean and standard deviation on each dimension [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Telesurgery prospects in delivering healthcare in remote areas,

    N. Shahzad, T. Chawla, and T. Gala, “Telesurgery prospects in delivering healthcare in remote areas,” The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association , vol. 69, no. Supl. 1, p. S69, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Telesurgery and the importance of context,

    F. Heemeyer, Q. Boehler, M. Kim, B. R. Bendok, E. L. Turcotte, H. H. Batjer, R. D. Madder, V . M. Pereira, and B. J. Nelson, “Telesurgery and the importance of context,” Science Robotics, vol. 10, no. 99, Feb. 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Global distribution of surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and obstetricians,

    H. Holmer, A. Lantz, T. Kunjumen, S. Finlayson, M. Hoyler, A. Siyam, H. Montenegro, E. T. Kelley, J. Campbell, M. N. Cherian et al. , “Global distribution of surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and obstetricians,” The Lancet Global Health , vol. 3, pp. S9–S11, 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Embracing robotic surgery in low-and middle-income countries: Potential benefits, challenges, and scope in the future,

    A. Mehta, J. C. Ng, W. A. Awuah, H. Huang, J. Kalmanovich, A. Agrawal, T. Abdul-Rahman, M. M. Hasan, V . Sikora, and A. Isik, “Embracing robotic surgery in low-and middle-income countries: Potential benefits, challenges, and scope in the future,” Annals of Medicine and Surgery , vol. 84, p. 104803, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Telesurgery and robotics: an improved and efficient era,

    A. Mohan, U. Wara, M. Shaikh, R. Rahman, and Z. Zaidi, “Telesurgery and robotics: an improved and efficient era,” Cureus, vol. 13, no. 3, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Telesurgery and robotics: Current status and future perspectives,

    S. K. Singh, J. Sharma, L. M. Joshua, F. Huda, N. Kumar, and S. Basu, “Telesurgery and robotics: Current status and future perspectives,” Telehealth and Telemedicine-The Far-Reaching Medicine for Everyone and Everywhere, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Telementoring and telesurgery for minimally invasive procedures,

    A. J. Hung, J. Chen, A. Shah, and I. S. Gill, “Telementoring and telesurgery for minimally invasive procedures,” The Journal of Urol- ogy, vol. 199, no. 2, pp. 355–369, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Environmental, social, and governance report 2023,

    Intuitive Surgical, Inc., “Environmental, social, and governance report 2023,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.intuitive.com/en-us/-/ media/ISI/Intuitive/Pdf/2023-Intuitive-ESG-Report.pdf

    work page 2023

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Trauma Pod: a semi-automated telerobotic surgical system,

    P. Garcia, J. Rosen, C. Kapoor, M. Noakes, G. Elbert, M. Treat, T. Ganous, M. Hanson, J. Manak, C. Hasser et al. , “Trauma Pod: a semi-automated telerobotic surgical system,” The International Jour- nal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 136...

    2009

  2. [10]

    Origins of surgical robotics: From space to the operating room,

    A. Tak ´acs, D. ´A. Nagy, I. Rudas, and T. Haidegger, “Origins of surgical robotics: From space to the operating room,” Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 13–30, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Surgery in space: the future of robotic telesurgery,

    T. Haidegger, J. S ´andor, and Z. Beny´o, “Surgery in space: the future of robotic telesurgery,” Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 25, pp. 681–690, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    Transcontinental robot-assisted remote telesurgery: feasibility and potential applications,

    J. Marescaux, J. Leroy, F. Rubino, M. Smith, M. Vix, M. Simone, and D. Mutter, “Transcontinental robot-assisted remote telesurgery: feasibility and potential applications,” Annals of Surgery , vol. 235, no. 4, pp. 487–492, 2002

    2002

  5. [13]

    The internet of skills: how 5G-synchronized reality is transforming robotic surgery,

    M. Dohler, “The internet of skills: how 5G-synchronized reality is transforming robotic surgery,” Robotic Surgery, pp. 207–215, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Insights from telesurgery expert conference on recent clinical experience and current status of remote surgery,

    B. Rocco, M. C. Moschovas, S. Saikali, G. Gaia, V . Patel, and M. C. Sighinolfi, “Insights from telesurgery expert conference on recent clinical experience and current status of remote surgery,” Journal of Robotic Surgery, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 240, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Model-mediated telemanipulation,

    P. Mitra and G. Niemeyer, “Model-mediated telemanipulation,” Intl. Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 253–262, Feb 2008

    2008

  8. [16]

    Semi- autonomous assistance for telesurgery under communication loss,

    H. Ishida, A. Munawar, R. H. Taylor, and P. Kazanzides, “Semi- autonomous assistance for telesurgery under communication loss,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2023, pp. 8467–8473

    2023

  9. [17]

    Clinical appli- cations of augmented reality in orthopaedic surgery: a comprehensive narrative review,

    J. R. Lex, R. Koucheki, J. Toor, and D. J. Backstein, “Clinical appli- cations of augmented reality in orthopaedic surgery: a comprehensive narrative review,” International Orthopaedics, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 375– 391, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Augmented reality in surgery: a scoping review,

    E. Barcali, E. Iadanza, L. Manetti, P. Francia, C. Nardi, and L. Bocchi, “Augmented reality in surgery: a scoping review,” Applied Sciences , vol. 12, no. 14, p. 6890, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Augmented reality in the operating room: a clinical feasibility study,

    C. Dennler, D. E. Bauer, A.-G. Scheibler, J. Spirig, T. G ¨otschi, P. F ¨urnstahl, and M. Farshad, “Augmented reality in the operating room: a clinical feasibility study,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders , vol. 22, no. 1, p. 451, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Augmented reality assisted orbital floor reconstruction,

    Y . Liu, E. Azimi, N. Dav ´e, C. Qiu, R. Yang, and P. Kazanzides, “Augmented reality assisted orbital floor reconstruction,” in IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Reality (ICIR) , 2021, pp. 25– 30

    2021

  13. [21]

    Augmented reality for minimally invasive spinal surgery,

    F. Avrumova and D. R. Lebl, “Augmented reality for minimally invasive spinal surgery,”Frontiers in Surgery, vol. 9, p. 1086988, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    A review of augmented reality in robotic-assisted surgery,

    L. Qian, J. Y . Wu, S. P. DiMaio, N. Navab, and P. Kazanzides, “A review of augmented reality in robotic-assisted surgery,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    A remote surgery experiment between Japan-Korea using the minimally invasive surgical system,

    J. Arata, H. Takahashi, P. Pitakwatchara, S. Warisawa, K. Konishi, K. Tanoue, S. Ieiri, S. Shimizu, N. Nakashima, K. Okamura, Y . S. Kim, S. M. Kim, J.-S. Hahm, M. Hashizume, and M. Mitsuishi, “A remote surgery experiment between Japan-Korea using the minimally invasive surgic...

    2006

  16. [24]

    Teleoperation in surgical robotics – network latency effects on surgical performance,

    M. J. Lum, J. Rosen, H. King, D. C. Friedman, T. S. Lendvay, A. S. Wright, M. N. Sinanan, and B. Hannaford, “Teleoperation in surgical robotics – network latency effects on surgical performance,” in Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biolog...

    2009

  17. [25]

    Compensatory motion scaling for time-delayed robotic surgery,

    R. K. Orosco, B. Lurie, T. Matsuzaki, E. K. Funk, V . Divi, F. C. Holsinger, S. Hong, F. Richter, N. Das, and M. Yip, “Compensatory motion scaling for time-delayed robotic surgery,” Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 35, pp. 2613–2618, 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Predictive control approaches for bilateral teleoperation,

    R. Uddin and J. Ryu, “Predictive control approaches for bilateral teleoperation,” Annual Reviews in Control , vol. 42, pp. 82–99, 2016

    2016

  19. [27]

    Augmented reality predictive displays to help mitigate the effects of delayed telesurgery,

    F. Richter, Y . Zhang, Y . Zhi, R. K. Orosco, and M. C. Yip, “Augmented reality predictive displays to help mitigate the effects of delayed telesurgery,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Au- tomation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 444–450

    2019

  20. [28]

    Teleprogramming: Toward delay-invariant remote manipulation,

    J. Funda, T. S. Lindsay, and R. P. Paul, “Teleprogramming: Toward delay-invariant remote manipulation,” Presence: Teleoperators & Vir- tual Environments, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 29–44, 1992

    1992

  21. [29]

    Sensor-based space robotics-ROTEX and its telerobotic features,

    G. Hirzinger, B. Brunner, J. Dietrich, and J. Heindl, “Sensor-based space robotics-ROTEX and its telerobotic features,” IEEE Trans. on Robotics and Automation , vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 649–663, 1993

    1993

  22. [30]

    An open-source research kit for the da Vinci® Surgical System,

    P. Kazanzides, Z. Chen, A. Deguet, G. S. Fischer, R. H. Taylor, and S. P. DiMaio, “An open-source research kit for the da Vinci® Surgical System,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , May 2014, pp. 6434–6439, iSSN: 1050-4729

    2014

  23. [31]

    A real- time dynamic simulator and an associated front-end representation format for simulating complex robots and environments,

    A. Munawar, Y . Wang, R. Gondokaryono, and G. S. Fischer, “A real- time dynamic simulator and an associated front-end representation format for simulating complex robots and environments,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , Nov 2019...

    2019

  24. [32]

    Open simulation environment for learning and practice of robot- assisted surgical suturing,

    A. Munawar, J. Y . Wu, G. S. Fischer, R. H. Taylor, and P. Kazanzides, “Open simulation environment for learning and practice of robot- assisted surgical suturing,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 3843–3850, Apr. 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    dvrk camera registration,

    “dvrk camera registration,” Sep. 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //github.com/jhu-dvrk/dvrk camera registration/

    2024

  26. [34]

    Collaborative Robotics Toolkit (CRTK): Open software framework for surgical robotics research,

    Y .-H. Su, A. Munawar, A. Deguet, A. Lewis, K. Lindgren, Y . Li, R. H. Taylor, G. S. Fischer, B. Hannaford, and P. Kazanzides, “Collaborative Robotics Toolkit (CRTK): Open software framework for surgical robotics research,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotic Computing...

    2020

  27. [35]

    dvrk digital twin teleoperation,

    “dvrk digital twin teleoperation,” Nov. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/LCSR-CIIS/dvrk digital twin teleoperation

    2024

  28. [36]

    Robotic pyeloplasty using internet protocol and satellite network-based telesurgery,

    C. Y . Nguan, R. Morady, C. Wang, D. Harrison, D. Browning, R. Rayman, and P. P. W. Luke, “Robotic pyeloplasty using internet protocol and satellite network-based telesurgery,” The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 10–14, 2008

    2008

  29. [37]

    Intercontinental haptic teleoperation of a flying vehicle: A step towards real-time applications,

    A. Y . Mersha, X. Hou, R. Mahony, S. Stramigioli, P. Corke, and R. Carloni, “Intercontinental haptic teleoperation of a flying vehicle: A step towards real-time applications,” in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems , 2013, pp. 4951–4957

    2013

  30. [38]

    Lessons from learning to spin “pens

    J. Wang, Y . Yuan, H. Che, H. Qi, Y . Ma, J. Malik, and X. Wang, “Lessons from learning to spin “pens”,” in 8th Annual Conference on Robot Learning , 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.