Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Towards Design and Development of a Concentric Tube Steerable Drilling Robot for Creating S-shape Tunnels for Pelvic Fixation Procedures

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A four-degree-of-freedom robot with two nested pre-curved nitinol tubes can drill long S-shaped bone tunnels, matching the length and diameter needed for pelvic fixation screws.

desk verdict A credible hardware feasibility demo of a two-tube concentric-tube drill that makes S-shaped and out-of-plane tunnels in bone simulant, but the quantitative support for the headline trajectory-fidelity claim is thinner than the abstract suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01811 v1 pith:CVMKZLEK submitted 2025-07-02 cs.RO

Yash Kulkarni , Susheela Sharma , Sarah Go , Jordan P. Amadio , Mohsen Khadem , Farshid Alambeigi This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords concentrictuberobotsteerabledrillingpelvicfixationS-shapetrajectorynitinoltubessacroiliacscrewsurgicalroboticsbonephantom
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

This paper aims to establish that a steerable drilling robot with two nested superelastic nitinol tubes can create the long, S-shaped bone tunnels that rigid pelvic fixation instruments cannot. The authors design a four-degree-of-freedom robot that translates and rotates the tubes independently to steer a flexible drill along a curved path, and they validate it in Sawbones phantoms using the length and diameter of a standard sacroiliac screw. Measured insertion lengths came within 2.7% and 6.2% of the intended arcs, and the inner tube radius of curvature came within 0.4%, so the authors conclude the robot reliably produces planar and out-of-plane S-shaped trajectories. If it holds in real bone, the approach would let surgeons place fixation screws along anatomically optimal curved pathways instead of straight lines.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the concentric tube pair: an outer nitinol tube (3.61 mm outer diameter, 110 mm long) and an inner nitinol tube (2.6 mm outer diameter, 290 mm long), both heat-treated to a 50 mm radius of curvature and nested inside a straight stainless steel sheath. Independently translating and rotating each tube changes the relative orientation of their curvatures, and this interaction steers the flexible drill bit; an S-shape is produced by aligning the curvatures in opposition (k1 = -k2). A flexible torque coil inside the tubes transmits rotation from the drill motor to a 6 mm ball-nose end mill, and the actuation unit provides two translational and two rotational degrees of freedom. The paper's key quantitative check is that the measured inner-tube radius of curvature (50.2 mm) matches the heat-treated ideal (50 mm) within 0.4%, which is the evidence that the tube curvature, not uncontrolled deformation, set the drilled path.

What would settle it

Drill the same S-shape trajectory into a denser bone surrogate (e.g., cortical-bone-equivalent Sawbones or cadaveric bone), then CT-scan the resulting tunnel and measure the inner tube's radius of curvature and the final tip position. If the measured curvature deviates from the 50 mm heat-treated value by substantially more than the 0.4% error seen in PCF 5 foam, or if the second curve fails to form, the assumption that the pre-curved tubes control the path is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports the design and benchtop validation of a four-degree-of-freedom concentric tube steerable drilling robot that creates long S-shaped tunnels in simulated bone. Using two nested superelastic nitinol tubes heat-treated to a 50 mm radius of curvature, one inside another inside a straight stainless steel sheath, the robot steers a flexible rotating drill bit along a curved path by independently translating and rotating each tube. In Sawbones phantoms with drilling parameters matching a 90 mm, 7 mm sacroiliac fixation screw, the outer tube's insertion arc length came within 2.7% of the intended 40.7 mm, the inner tube's within 6.2% of 50 mm, and the inner tube's radius of curvature within 0.4% of 50 mm. Planar S-shapes were produced with two tube-alignment scenarios, and an out-of-plane S-shape was produced by rotating the inner tube 90 degrees before advancing it. The paper states this is the first system, to the authors' knowledge, to create long S-shaped drilling trajectories with more than one curvature for pelvic fixation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the pre-curved nitinol tubes hold their heat-treated shape while cutting bone, so the path of the drill bit is set by the tubes' curvature rather than by bending under cutting forces.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pelvic fixation could move from straight-line drilling to curved tunnels that follow natural osseous pathways, potentially reducing screw misplacement and the need for repeated X-ray checks.
  • The modular tube design means radii of curvature can be heat-treated to match patient-specific planned trajectories rather than a fixed 50 mm value.
  • Out-of-plane S-shape drilling opens the possibility of 3D trajectories that navigate around nerves and vessels, not just planar curves.
  • Because the drilled diameter (7.1 mm average) and length (about 90 mm) match existing sacroiliac screws, the robot could be used with current implants and guide wires.
  • The 55-second average drilling time in foam phantoms suggests the procedure is feasible within surgical time constraints, though this was not measured in living tissue.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The accuracy figures come from Sawbones foam, whose density approximates osteoporotic bone; denser cortical bone would stress the tubes more, so the 0.4% curvature error is likely a lower bound for clinical bone.
  • The paper leaves deformation modeling for future work; adding a real-time curvature or force estimate would let the robot correct deviations during drilling, which is the natural next step toward image-guided control.
  • With two tubes, the combined curvature of the first S-section came out about four times larger than the individual tube curvature; creating tighter S-bends may require sharper heat-treated tubes or additional nested tubes, a design tradeoff the authors do not fully explore.
  • The same two-tube steering principle could apply to other long-bone or craniofacial procedures needing curved tunnels, not just pelvic fixation.
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 four-degree-of-freedom concentric tube steerable drilling robot (pelvic CT-SDR) for creating S-shaped tunnels for pelvic fixation. The system uses two nested nitinol tubes heat-treated to a 50 mm radius of curvature, a flexible torque-coil drill, and modular actuation units for independent translation and rotation of the tubes. The authors evaluate the robot by drilling planar S-shaped tunnels in two scenarios (S1 and S2) and an out-of-plane S-shaped tunnel (90-degree rotation) in PCF 5 Sawbones foam phantoms under C-arm X-ray. Cross-section analysis of four repeat S2 tests yields average insertion arc lengths of 39.6 mm versus an ideal 40.7 mm for the outer tube and 46.9 mm versus 50 mm for the inner tube (errors 2.7% and 6.2%), an inner-tube radius of curvature of 50.2 mm versus 50 mm (0.4% error), and drilled diameters of 7.4 mm and 6.8 mm. The paper claims that the robot can create long S-shaped drilling trajectories that follow the natural curvatures of the pelvic anatomy.

Significance. Taken at face value, the system would be a meaningful step toward curved pelvic fixation, where current rigid instrumentation limits trajectory options. The work reports a complete hardware design, repeated phantom experiments, and quantitative cross-section measurements; the error metrics compare measurements against commanded design inputs, not against fitted parameters, which is a strength. The main value is the demonstration that two opposed pre-curved tubes can generate an S-shaped tunnel in a bone simulant. However, the quantitative support for the central claim is incomplete: the first-section curvature is excluded from the error table, no pointwise planned-versus-measured trajectory comparison is provided, and the out-of-plane test is only qualitative. These gaps currently prevent the paper from substantiating the "follow natural curvatures" claim at the level promised in the abstract.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table I; Section III-B1] Table I reports the measured radius of curvature for the inner tube (50.2 mm vs. 50 mm, 0.4% error) but explicitly marks the outer/first-section curvature as N/A, stating that the combined measured curvature of the first section is 232.3 mm. This is a load-bearing omission: the S-shape is composed of two opposed curved sections, and the first section is the one created principally by the outer tube. A combined radius of 232 mm is more than four times the 50 mm heat-treated radius, meaning the first section is far straighter than intended. Reporting the inner-tube error alone cannot establish that the drilled path is an S-shape with the designed geometry. The authors should either provide a measurement or model-based estimate of the first-section curvature (and its error) or significantly soften the S-shape fidelity claim.
  2. [Section III-B1; Fig. 6] No planned-versus-measured trajectory comparison is reported. The paper gives arc lengths and a single curvature value, but not the pointwise deviation of the drilled centerline from the nominal S-curve (e.g., RMS error or maximum deviation). The cross-section images used for Table I could be segmented to extract the tunnel centerline; reporting such an error metric would directly support the claim that the system "reliably create[s] desired curved trajectories." Without it, arc-length errors alone do not demonstrate trajectory fidelity.
  3. [Section III-B; Fig. 5] The out-of-plane experiment is presented only as X-ray images from two viewpoints with no quantitative measurement of the out-of-plane curvature or deviation from the intended plane. Since the abstract claims creation of out-of-plane S-shaped trajectories as a distinguishing capability, qualitative images are insufficient evidence. A measurement from the cross-section or biplanar X-ray (e.g., the angle between entrance and exit planes) should be reported.
  4. [Section V] The conclusion explicitly states that modeling "the deformation behavior of the pelvic CT-SDR while drilling a hard tissue" is future work "necessary for precise S-shape trajectory following and control." This concession is in tension with the abstract's strong claim that the robot "is capable of creating long S-shaped drilling trajectories that follow the natural curvatures of the pelvic anatomy." Because the experiments use only PCF 5 Sawbones (an osteoporotic bone simulant) and no deformation model, the reported accuracy cannot be assumed to hold in cortical or denser cancellous bone. The claims should be scoped to the tested phantom material, and the discussion should explicitly note how unmodeled deformation might affect the measured curvature and trajectory.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] "taken ensure to safety of procedure" should be "taken to ensure the safety of the procedure."
  2. [Section III-A] "Figure 4 illustrate the arc lengths drilled" should be "Figure 4 illustrates the arc lengths drilled."
  3. [Section II-A] The notation "k=50 mm radius of curvature" uses k for a radius; since k conventionally denotes curvature (1/radius), please use a different symbol (e.g., R) or define k clearly.
  4. [Section III-A] The relationship between the rotation angle θ and the curvature sign convention (k1 = −k2) is not explicitly defined; a short note or figure would clarify S1 versus S2.
  5. [Table I] The column header "Inner+Outer (mm)" is ambiguous because the "Ideal Insertion Length" row lists 40.7 (an arc length, not a diameter); clarify the units and what the column contains.
  6. [References] Reference [29] contains a garbled author string ("M. F. F. A. T. B. MBBS") that should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the pelvic CT-SDR's reported accuracy is established by direct measurement against independently chosen design targets, not by fitting or by self-referential reasoning.

full rationale

This paper is an experimental hardware-validation study, not a derivation of a predicted quantity from a model that already contains the result. The central claims—that the robot can create planar and out-of-plane S-shaped tunnels in Sawbones phantoms with insertion-length errors of 2.7% and 6.2% and an inner-tube radius-of-curvature error of 0.4%—are supported by cross-sectional measurements of drilled tunnels compared with independently specified design targets: the 40.7 mm outer-tube arc length, the 50 mm inner-tube arc length, and the 50 mm heat-treated curvature. These targets are design inputs chosen to match the 90 mm, 7 mm sacroiliac screw dimensions, not parameters fitted to the experimental data; the measured values could have disagreed with them, and the reported errors indicate genuine agreement. The paper's many self-citations describe the authors' prior spinal CT-SDR platform and are used only to motivate the new pelvic design, not as evidence for the pelvic system's performance, so the self-citation burden is not load-bearing. The acknowledged gaps—no planned-vs-measured trajectory pointwise error, the first-section curvature reported as N/A because the combined curvature is 232.3 mm versus the 50 mm heat-treated value, and the deferral of deformation modeling to future work—are completeness and validity limitations for the trajectory-fidelity claim, but they are not circularity. No equation reduces to its own output, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work to force the conclusion. The validation is self-contained against the measurements reported in the paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on three domain assumptions: (1) pre-curved NiTi tubes determine the drill path without a validated deformation model; (2) PCF 5 Sawbones foam captures the mechanical behavior relevant to osteoporotic pelvic bone; (3) the flexible cutting tool does not alter the steering path. The only free parameters are the hand-chosen heat-treatment curvature (50 mm) and arc lengths (40.7/50 mm), selected to match a 90 mm screw but not derived from patient anatomy. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • NiTi tube heat-treatment radius of curvature = 50 mm (both tubes)
    Arbitrarily chosen in Section II-A ('while the 50 mm radius of curvatures were arbitrarily chosen, they can be easily changed to match the patient's anatomy'); all demonstrated trajectories use this single curvature, so system performance for other curvatures is untested.
  • Arc lengths for the S-shape (outer 40.7 mm, inner 50 mm) = 40.7 mm / 50 mm
    Chosen in Section III-B to match a 90 mm sacroiliac screw; not derived from patient anatomy, and only this configuration was tested.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Nested pre-curved superelastic NiTi tubes produce a predictable combined curvature that determines the drill path
    Invoked throughout Sections II and III; the paper compares measured curvature to the heat-treated 50 mm for the inner tube and explains the outer 232 mm as the combined effect, but provides no mechanics model or reference for this interaction.
  • domain assumption Drilling in PCF 5 Sawbones foam reproduces the relevant mechanical conditions of osteoporotic pelvic bone
    Section III states the phantom 'closely resemble[s] a similar density to osteoporotic bone' citing [31]; no validation that tube-bone interaction forces match real pelvic bone.
  • domain assumption The flexible drill tip transmits rotation without affecting the steering path of the tubes
    Implicit in the design (Section II-B); the drill is flexible and the tubes steer, but no measurement of cutting-force effects on tube deflection is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Design and Development of a Concentric Tube Steerable Drilling Robot for Creating S-shape Tunnels for Pelvic Fixation Procedures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CVMKZLEK

@misc{pith2026250701811,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Design and Development of a Concentric Tube Steerable Drilling Robot for Creating S-shape Tunnels for Pelvic Fixation Procedures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CVMKZLEK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01811}
}
read the original abstract

Current pelvic fixation techniques rely on rigid drilling tools, which inherently constrain the placement of rigid medical screws in the complex anatomy of pelvis. These constraints prevent medical screws from following anatomically optimal pathways and force clinicians to fixate screws in linear trajectories. This suboptimal approach, combined with the unnatural placement of the excessively long screws, lead to complications such as screw misplacement, extended surgery times, and increased radiation exposure due to repeated X-ray images taken ensure to safety of procedure. To address these challenges, in this paper, we present the design and development of a unique 4 degree-of-freedom (DoF) pelvic concentric tube steerable drilling robot (pelvic CT-SDR). The pelvic CT-SDR is capable of creating long S-shaped drilling trajectories that follow the natural curvatures of the pelvic anatomy. The performance of the pelvic CT-SDR was thoroughly evaluated through several S-shape drilling experiments in simulated bone phantoms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01811 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (A) CT scan of pelvis with anatomical components labeled [10]. (B) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the pelvic CT-SDR and its key components. Top: schematic diagrams of the system, including (1) the NiTi Housing Unit for rotational [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Experimental Set up utilized for evaluating the efficacy of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Fluoroscopic images illustrating two different scenarios of S-shaped planar drilling by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Out-of-Plane S-shaped drilling experiments following [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Experimental results indicating the insertion lengths, radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Open pelvic fractures: epidemiology, current concepts of management and outcome

    M. R. W. Grotz, M. R. W. Grotz, M. K. Allami, M. K. Allami, P. J. Harwood, H.-C. Pape, C. Krettek, and P. V . Giannoudis, “Open pelvic fractures: epidemiology, current concepts of management and outcome.” Injury, vol. 36 1, pp. 1–13, 2005

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Epidemiology and burden of pelvic fractures: Results from the global burden of disease study 2019

    S. Hu, J. Guo, B. Zhu, Y . Dong, and F. Li, “Epidemiology and burden of pelvic fractures: Results from the global burden of disease study 2019.” Injury, 2022

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    The incidence, causes, mechanism, risk factors, classification, and diagnosis of pelvic fracture urethral injury,

    A. Alwaal, U. B. Zaid, S. D. Blaschko, C. R. Harris, T. W. Gaither, J. W. Mcaninch, and B. N. Breyer, “The incidence, causes, mechanism, risk factors, classification, and diagnosis of pelvic fracture urethral injury,” Arab Journal of Urology , vol. 13, pp. 2 – 6, 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Pelvic fracture in multiple trauma: are we still up-to-date with massive fluid resuscitation?

    M. Burkhardt, A. Kristen, U. Culemann, D. Koehler, T. Histing, J. H. Holstein, A. Pizanis, and T. Pohlemann, “Pelvic fracture in multiple trauma: are we still up-to-date with massive fluid resuscitation?” Injury, vol. 45 Suppl 3, pp. S70–5, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:205445619

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Open pelvic fracture: the killing fracture?

    E. Hermans, M. J. R. Edwards, J. C. Goslings, and J. Biert, “Open pelvic fracture: the killing fracture?” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, vol. 13, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Design and evaluation of an intelligent reduction robot system for the minimally invasive reduction in pelvic fractures,

    C. Zhao, Y . Wang, X. Wu, G. Zhu, and S. Shi, “Design and evaluation of an intelligent reduction robot system for the minimally invasive reduction in pelvic fractures,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, vol. 17, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Pelvic fractures and mortality

    K.-H. Chong, T. A. Decoster, T. M. Osler, and B. Robinson, “Pelvic fractures and mortality.” The Iowa orthopaedic journal , vol. 17, pp. 110–4, 1997

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    Osseous fixation pathways in pelvic and acetabular fracture surgery: Osteology, radiology, and clinical applications,

    J. A. Bishop and M. Routt, “Osseous fixation pathways in pelvic and acetabular fracture surgery: Osteology, radiology, and clinical applications,” Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery , vol. 72, p. 1502–1509, 2012

    work page 2012

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Computer-aided automatic planning and biomechanical analysis of a novel arc screw for pelvic fracture internal fixation,

    Q. Yang, S. Feng, J. Song, C. Cheng, C. Liang, and Y . Wang, “Computer-aided automatic planning and biomechanical analysis of a novel arc screw for pelvic fracture internal fixation,” Computer methods and programs in biomedicine , vol. 220, p. 106810, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    The efficacy of “tirobot

    N. Li, Z. Zhu, C. Xiao, D. Wei, F. Wang, W. Zhang, and J. Hu, “The efficacy of “tirobot”orthopaedic robot-assisted vs conventional fluoroscopic percutaneous screw fixation of the sacroiliac joint,” In- ternational Orthopaedics , vol. 47, pp. 351 – 358, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Placement of lc-ii and trans- sacral screws using a robotic arm in a simulated bone model in the supine position – a feasibility study,

    J. Carlson, J. Zou, and B. R. Hartley, “Placement of lc-ii and trans- sacral screws using a robotic arm in a simulated bone model in the supine position – a feasibility study,” Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics, vol. 9, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    The use of a robotic arm for fixation of pelvic fractures,

    S. F. Gilani, M. Mohamed, B. Hartley, R. A. Zamora, J. Zou, M. Daccarett, and J. B. Carlson, “The use of a robotic arm for fixation of pelvic fractures,” Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma , vol. 37, pp. S28 – S32, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Iliosacral screw complications,

    M. L. C. Routt, P. T. Simonian, and J. Inaba, “Iliosacral screw complications,” Operative Techniques in Orthopaedics , vol. 7, pp. 206–220, 1997

    1997

  6. [14]

    Augmented reality navigation for precise implantation of lc2 pelvic tunnel screws in minimally invasive surgery,

    J. Zang, Z. Lin, C. Ding, D. Bian, J. Pan, and X. Tang, “Augmented reality navigation for precise implantation of lc2 pelvic tunnel screws in minimally invasive surgery,” Fundamental Research, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Curvafix: A novel implant for pelvic fragility fractures,

    H. S. Miller and M. P. Gardner, “Curvafix: A novel implant for pelvic fragility fractures,” Trauma Case Reports , vol. 43, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Towards biomechanics-aware design of a steerable drilling robot for spinal fixation procedures with flexible pedicle screws,

    S. Sharma, Y . Sun, S. Go, J. P. Amadio, M. Khadem, A. H. Eskandari, and F. Alambeigi, “Towards biomechanics-aware design of a steerable drilling robot for spinal fixation procedures with flexible pedicle screws,” 2023 International Symposium on Medical Robotics (ISMR) , pp. 1–6, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    A biomechanics-aware robot-assisted steerable drilling framework for minimally invasive spinal fixation procedures

    S. Sharma, Y . Sun, J. Bonyun, M. Khadem, J. Amadio, A. H. Eskandari, and F. Alambeigi, “A biomechanics-aware robot-assisted steerable drilling framework for minimally invasive spinal fixation procedures.” IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering , vol. PP, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    On the use of a continuum manipulator and a bendable medical screw for minimally invasive interventions in orthopedic surgery,

    F. Alambeigi, M. Bakhtiarinejad, S. Sefati, R. Hegeman, I. Iordachita, H. Khanuja, and M. Armand, “On the use of a continuum manipulator and a bendable medical screw for minimally invasive interventions in orthopedic surgery,” IEEE transactions on medical robotics and bionics,...

    2019

  11. [19]

    A curved-drilling ap- proach in core decompression of the femoral head osteonecrosis using a continuum manipulator,

    F. Alambeigi, Y . Wang, S. Sefati, C. Gao, R. J. Murphy, I. Iordachita, R. H. Taylor, H. Khanuja, and M. Armand, “A curved-drilling ap- proach in core decompression of the femoral head osteonecrosis using a continuum manipulator,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 2,...

    2017

  12. [20]

    A handheld steerable surgical drill with a novel miniaturized articulated joint module for dexterous confined-space bone work,

    Y . Wang, H. Zheng, R. H. Taylor, and K. W. Samuel Au, “A handheld steerable surgical drill with a novel miniaturized articulated joint module for dexterous confined-space bone work,” IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering , vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 2926–2934, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Steerable drill for minimally-invasive surgery,

    F. Alambeigi and M. Armand, “Steerable drill for minimally-invasive surgery,” Jan. 2 2020, uS Patent App. 16/490,751

    2020

  14. [22]

    A novel concentric tube steerable drilling robot for minimally in- vasive treatment of spinal tumors using cavity and u-shape drilling techniques,

    S. Sharma, J. H. Park, J. P. Amadio, M. Khadem, and F. Alambeigi, “A novel concentric tube steerable drilling robot for minimally in- vasive treatment of spinal tumors using cavity and u-shape drilling techniques,” 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation ...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Spatial spinal fixation: A transformative approach using a unique robot-assisted steerable drilling system and flexible pedicle screw,

    S. Sharma, Y . Kulkarni, S. Go, J. Bonyun, J. P. Amadio, R. Ra- jebi, M. Tilton, M. Khadem, and F. Alambeigi, “Spatial spinal fixation: A transformative approach using a unique robot-assisted steerable drilling system and flexible pedicle screw,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2405.17600, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A concentric tube steerable drilling robot for minimally invasive spinal fixation of osteoporotic vertebrae

    S. Sharma, T. G. Mohanraj, J. P. Amadio, M. Khadem, and F. Alam- beigi, “A concentric tube steerable drilling robot for minimally invasive spinal fixation of osteoporotic vertebrae.” IEEE transactions on bio- medical engineering , vol. PP, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Towards the feasibility analysis and additive manufac- turing of a novel flexible pedicle screw for spinal fixation procedures,

    Y . Kulkarni, S. Sharma, J. Allison, J. P. Amadio, M. Tilton, and F. Alambeigi, “Towards the feasibility analysis and additive manufac- turing of a novel flexible pedicle screw for spinal fixation procedures,” Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium , vol. abs/2409.10778, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    S3d: A spatial steerable surgical drilling framework for robotic spinal fixation procedures,

    D. Maroufi, X. Huang, Y . Kulkarni, O. Rezayof, S. Sharma, V . Goggela, J. P. Amadio, M. Khadem, and F. Alambeigi, “S3d: A spatial steerable surgical drilling framework for robotic spinal fixation procedures,” ArXiv, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    A synergistic patient-specific approach for en- hanced spinal fixation using a novel flexible pedicle screw and a complementary steerable drilling robotic system,

    Y . Kulkarni, S. Sharma, Z. Yakay, S. Go, J. P. Amadio, M. Tilton, and F. Alambeigi, “A synergistic patient-specific approach for en- hanced spinal fixation using a novel flexible pedicle screw and a complementary steerable drilling robotic system,” IEEE Transactions on Biomed...

    2025

  20. [28]

    Augmented bridge spinal fixation: A new concept for addressing pedicle screw pullout via a steerable drilling robot and flexible pedicle screws,

    Y . Kulkarni, S. Sharma, O. Rezayof, S. Kapuria, J. P. Amadio, M. Khadem, M. Tilton, and F. Alambeigi, “Augmented bridge spinal fixation: A new concept for addressing pedicle screw pullout via a steerable drilling robot and flexible pedicle screws,” ArXiv, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Percutaneous internal fixation of pelvic fractures,

    A. J. Stevenson, B. Swartman, and M. F. F. A. T. B. MBBS, “Percutaneous internal fixation of pelvic fractures,” Der Unfallchirurg, vol. 120, pp. 10–18, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Fabrication, heat treatment and joining of nitinol components,

    D. Hodgson, “Fabrication, heat treatment and joining of nitinol components,” in SMST-2000, Proc. Int. Conf. on Shape Memory and Superelastic Technologies, 2001, pp. 11–24

    2000

  23. [31]

    Experimental investigation of pull-out performance of pedicle screws at different polyurethane (pu) foam densities,

    A. C ¸ etin and D. A. Bircan, “Experimental investigation of pull-out performance of pedicle screws at different polyurethane (pu) foam densities,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine , vol. 235, pp. 709 – 716, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.