Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 81 references

This review argues that medical physicists should move into the operating room as quality and safety experts for image-guided surgery.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Image-guided surgery is presented as a natural new frontier for medical physics, conditional on overcoming cultural, qualification, and financial barriers.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A well-written perspective on medical physics in the OR that is transparent about its own speculative economics; worth peer review, but the central claim remains a hypothesis. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.03420 v1 pith:X34YAA2W submitted 2025-09-03 physics.med-ph eess.IV

Image-Guided Surgery: Technology, Quality, Innovation, and Opportunities for Medical Physics

Jeffrey H. Siewerdsen This is my paper
classification physics.med-ph eess.IV
keywords image-guided surgerymedical physicsintraoperative imagingsurgical navigationimage registrationquality assurancesurgical data scienceoperating room
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

Modern image-guided surgery relies on a stack of technologies—intraoperative CT and cone-beam CT, optical and electromagnetic tracking, image registration, augmented reality, and surgical robots—that must stay geometrically consistent with the patient throughout a procedure. This stack, the paper argues, currently has no dedicated professional responsible for whole-system quality and safety: vendors support individual devices, technologists run startup checks, and nobody owns the system as a whole. By tracing how medical physics became integral to radiology and radiation oncology while surgery advanced largely through engineering at arm's length from clinical care, the review contends that the natural fix is already trained—the medical physicist. It surveys current technologies, funding trends, and barriers, and argues the cultural and financial obstacles are real but tractable. The value proposition: a physicist dedicated to the OR can pay for the position by catching faults before failure, saving OR time, and preventing a single wrong-level spine surgery.

Core claim

The paper claims that medical physics—commissioning, quality assurance, systems integration, quantitative problem solving—has a direct, underused counterpart in surgery. Its hypothesis: medical physicists should expand into the surgical circle of care as agents of quality, safety, and innovation. Surveying intraoperative imaging, tracking, registration, visualization, and robotics, it shows these technologies share a geometric core—aligning images to patient and instrument—that medical physicists are trained to own, while the OR lacks any system-level quality-assurance professional. It proposes entry points from radiation-exposure quality improvement to surgical data science and navigation Q

What carries the argument

The argument turns on an analogy: the operating room resembles the radiation oncology department before standardized QA existed—high technology with no single professional owning system-level quality. The technical anchor is the image-to-world transformation, the geometric registration aligning image coordinates with patient and tracked instrument coordinates; this is the shared quantitative core of nearly every image-guided surgery technology and exactly the kind of calibration and QA task medical physicists already perform. The value proposition then weighs the cost of OR time and preventable harm against a physicist's salary, arguing the role can pay for itself.

Load-bearing premise

The whole opportunity collapses if surgical departments will not pay for or otherwise accept a medical physicist in the OR—the paper explicitly acknowledges that cultural and financial barriers alone could nullify the hypothesis.

What would settle it

A one-year controlled pilot that embeds a medical physicist in a high-volume surgical service and compares adverse events, equipment failures caught before patient use, and OR downtime against a matched control service; if the embedded physicist saves no more than the position costs or is not welcomed by the surgical team, the paper's central value claim is weakened.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Medical physics training and certification would add a surgery-focused subspecialty covering intraoperative imaging, navigation, and robotic QA.
  • Hospitals would adopt a 'surgical medical physics' role embedded in OR teams, with value measured by avoided adverse events and saved OR time.
  • Rigorous QA standards would emerge for intraoperative imaging, trackers, and surgical robots, reducing dependence on vendor representatives.
  • Surgical data science would gain clinically embedded experts to build interoperable OR data infrastructure, structured reporting, and decision support.
  • Reimbursement and budgeting would shift to support OR quality roles as quality-based payment becomes more common.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A concrete pilot would embed a medical physicist in one high-volume surgical service for a year and compare adverse events, equipment failures caught before patient use, and OR downtime against a matched control service; the paper's own cost figures suggest this could break even with a single prevented wrong-level spine surgery.
  • If the model succeeds, the boundary between medical physics and clinical engineering blurs, and hospital technology management for the OR may become a credentialed medical physics activity rather than a vendor-maintained service.
  • The argument suggests QA of surgical trackers and robots could be built around longitudinal measurement of registration accuracy using statistical process control, an extension the paper gestures toward with its cited tracking-system performance work.
  • Partnerships between surgery and quantitative-science training programs could serve as a recruitment pipeline, producing the hybrid workforce the expanded role requires.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This review article traces the parallel evolution of medical physics and engineering in surgery, surveys the current technology landscape of image-guided surgery (intraoperative imaging, tracking/navigation, registration, visualization, robotics), and argues that medical physicists should expand their role into the surgical circle of care as agents of quality assurance, safety, and innovation. The paper also summarizes research funding trends, interoperability challenges, and professional barriers, and concludes with a SWOT-style outlook and a call for medical physicists to engage in surgery.

Significance. The paper is a broad, well-written, and well-referenced synthesis by a leading expert in the field. It usefully connects technical developments in image-guided surgery with professional questions in medical physics, and it aligns with ongoing discussions such as AAPM's Medical Physics 3.0. If the proposal is accepted, it could influence training, career pathways, and interdepartmental collaboration. However, the central professional claim rests on an illustrative value proposition rather than empirical evidence; the paper itself labels the outlook a 'hypothesis.' As a review and perspective, it is a valuable contribution, but it should be careful not to overstate the evidence for the opportunity it advocates.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5.5] The cost-benefit argument is load-bearing for the paper's central claim, but it is entirely illustrative. The bullets (OR time $1000–8000/hour, ~$200k physicist salary, 1 wrong-level spine surgery per 3000 procedures, etc.) are plausible but unsupported by any data showing that a medical physicist's interventions actually prevent faults, save 10 minutes per case, or reduce adverse-event rates. The conclusion in Section 6 that 'there is clear opportunity' overstates what the evidence supports. I recommend explicitly labeling this as a hypothesis requiring pilot studies and cost-effectiveness evaluation, and tempering the abstract and conclusion accordingly.
  2. [Section 5.4 / Ref. 61] The statistic that '1 in 3 patients suffers an adverse event' is cited only through a BMJ news article, not the underlying peer-reviewed study. Since this statistic motivates the safety rationale, please cite the primary source with details on the patient population, definition of adverse event, and study design. This is a specific, fixable issue, but it matters because the safety argument is one of the main pillars of the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3] Two figures are both labeled 'Figure 3': the intraoperative imaging systems figure (Section 2.2) and the image registration examples figure (Section 2.3). Renumber the later figure to avoid confusion.
  2. [Author affiliation] The corresponding author address contains a typo: 'Centner' should be 'Center.'
  3. [Reference 54] The author list in reference 54 is garbled ("Kutcher GJ, LCMGWFHSLRJMJRP et al."). Please provide the full and correct citation for the AAPM TG-40 report.
  4. [References 4-5] References for Siemens Healthineers and Medtronic revenue are third-party websites; consider citing official financial reports for reproducibility.
  5. [Throughout] There are inconsistent spacing and hyphenation issues (e.g., 'image -guided surgery,' 'state -of-the-art,' 'R adiation'). A careful proofread would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper is a review/position piece whose central claim is argued by analogy and explicitly acknowledged as a hypothesis to be tested.

full rationale

This manuscript is a narrative review and professional-opinion piece, not a derivation or empirical prediction. It surveys image-guided surgery technologies, funding trends, and challenges, then argues by analogy from medical physics' role in radiology/radiotherapy that medical physicists could add value in the surgical circle of care. The economic value proposition in Section 5.5 is presented as a set of illustrative, open questions ('what value is returned to Surgery...?') rather than as a fitted model or derived result; no parameter is calibrated to data and then renamed a prediction. The author's self-citations (e.g., refs 40-42, 49-50, 63) appear as examples of ongoing research directions and technical illustrations, not as the foundation of a uniqueness claim or as evidence that forces the conclusion. The paper explicitly acknowledges the fragility of its central hypothesis in Section 5.5: 'Any one of them may be sufficient to nullify the hypothesis that medical physicists have a valuable role to play within the circle of care in surgery.' That is the opposite of a circular, self-justifying argument. No equation or definition reduces to its own input, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is used to forbid alternatives. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a review and perspective, so no mathematical free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The central argument rests on three domain assumptions about transferability, need, and payment, all of which the author partially acknowledges as challenges.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Expertise in QA for imaging and therapy systems in radiology and radiation oncology transfers to intraoperative imaging, navigation, and robotics.
    Sections 5.4 and 5.5 argue the same quantitative skills apply to surgical systems, but this transferability is asserted rather than demonstrated with evidence from actual OR deployments.
  • domain assumption Operating room technology complexity creates a need for a dedicated systems-level QA role.
    Section 4 argues heterogeneity and reliance on vendor representatives are problems, but no controlled evidence is provided that a medical physicist role would reduce harm or improve workflow.
  • domain assumption Surgery departments will pay for medical physics services under value-based reimbursement.
    Section 5.5 lists this as an open question: 'will Surgery pay for services provided by medical physicists?' It is therefore an unverified assumption on which the central opportunity depends.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Image-Guided Surgery: Technology, Quality, Innovation, and Opportunities for Medical Physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X34YAA2W

@misc{pith2026250903420,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Image-Guided Surgery: Technology, Quality, Innovation, and Opportunities for Medical Physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X34YAA2W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03420}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The science and clinical practice of medical physics has been integral to the advancement of radiology and radiation therapy for over a century. In parallel, advances in surgery - including intraoperative imaging, registration, and other technologies within the expertise of medical physicists - have advanced primarily in connection to other disciplines, such as biomedical engineering and computer science, and via somewhat distinct translational paths. This review article briefly traces the parallel and convergent evolution of such scientific, engineering, and clinical domains with an eye to a potentially broader, more impactful role of medical physics in research and clinical practice of surgery. A review of image-guided surgery technologies is offered, including intraoperative imaging, tracking / navigation, image registration, visualization, and surgical robotics across a spectrum of surgical applications. Trends and drivers for research and innovation are traced, including federal funding and academic-industry partnership, and some of the major challenges to achieving major clinical impact are described. Opportunities for medical physicists to expand expertise and contribute to the advancement of surgery in the decade ahead are outlined, including research and innovation, data science approaches, improving efficiency through operations research and optimization, improving patient safety, and bringing rigorous quality assurance to technologies and processes in the circle of care for surgery. Challenges abound but appear tractable, including domain knowledge, professional qualifications, and the need for investment and clinical partnership.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03420 by Jeffrey H. Siewerdsen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Qualitative depiction of evolution and interactions among physics, engineering, radiology, radiotherapy, and surgery. With the discovery of ionizing radiation at the end of the 19th century came the genesis of radiology and radiation oncology, with distinct specialization in the mid-1900s and medical physics integral to each. Medicine and surgery have long, distinct histories followed by convergence in cul… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Photograph of surgical navigation system (Q Guidance; Stryker, Kalamazoo USA) in a laboratory environment: (A) stereoscopic optical (infrared) tracker; (B) navigation display, including image data (triplanar and volumetric views), planning information (e.g., spinal pedicle screw trajectories), and real-time visualization of tracked instrument positions; (C) surgical instrumentation, including tracked instr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Intraoperative imaging systems, illustrating not only the spectrum of modalities but also the differences in mobile or fixed embodiments and implications for the patient support (operating table). (A) Mobile C-arm for 2D fluoroscopy and 3D CBCT (Ciartic Move, Siemens Healthineers). (B) Mobile intraoperative CT (Airo, Stryker) that acquires helical MDCT via translation of the gantry on rails that are physic… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Examples of advanced image registration techniques in various image-guided surgery applications. (a) Multi-body 3D-2D registration of multi-body fractures in pelvic CT and fluoroscopy39. (b) 3D-3D multi-modality deformable registration of preoperative MRI and intraoperative CT via iterative optimization40. (c) 3D-3D multi-modality deformable registration of preoperative MRI and intraoperative CBCT via a de… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example surgical robots. (A) Soft-tissue robot (DaVinci XI; Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale CA), including (A1) the console, (A2) dexterous fingertip manipulators, (A3) endoscopy display, and (A4) robotic arms for positioning and activation of intracorporeal / laparoscopic video and robotic end effectors. (B) Bone robot (Excelsius GPS; Globus Medical, Philadelphia PA), including (B1) robotic arm and mobile, … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Increasing research activity in image-guided surgery in recent decades. (A) Number of scientific publications on the topic of image-guided surgery by year. (Source: PubMed; search term “image-guided surgery”). NIH funding of image-guided surgery research is summarized in terms of (B) number of awards granted (all types) and (C) average direct cost per award. (Source: NIH RePorter search keyword: image-guid… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Empire of the Scalpel

    Ira Rutkow. Empire of the Scalpel. Simon and Schuster, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    The Biodesign Model: Training Physician Innovators and Entrepreneurs

    Augustin DA, Denend L, Wall J, Krummel T, Azagury DE. The Biodesign Model: Training Physician Innovators and Entrepreneurs. In: 2019:71-88. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18613-5_7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-18613-5_7 2019

  3. [3]

    Revenue of Medtronic from 2006 to 2024

    Conor Stewart. Revenue of Medtronic from 2006 to 2024. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241515/total- revenues-of-medtronic-since-2006/

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    https://companiesmarketcap.com/siemens- healthineers/revenue/

    Revenue history for Siemens Healthineers from 2017 to 2024. https://companiesmarketcap.com/siemens- healthineers/revenue/

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Siemens posts strong revenues for Q4, fiscal year

    work page

  6. [6]

    https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top- engineering-schools/biomedical-rankings

    Best Biomedical Engineering Programs. https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top- engineering-schools/biomedical-rankings

    work page

  7. [7]

    Engineering by the Numbers

    Roy J. Engineering by the Numbers. American Society for Engineering Education. Published online 2018:1-40

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Surgical robotics: Reviewing the past, analysing the present, imagining the future

    Gomes P. Surgical robotics: Reviewing the past, analysing the present, imagining the future. Robot Comput Integr Manuf. 2011;27(2):261-266. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2010.06.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2010.06.009 2011

  9. [9]

    Tumor Ablation: Common Modalities and General Practices

    Knavel EM, Brace CL. Tumor Ablation: Common Modalities and General Practices. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;16(4):192-200. doi: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.tvir.2013.08.002

    work page doi:10.1053/j.tvir.2013.08.002 2013

  10. [10]

    Emerging HIFU applications in cancer therapy

    Maloney E, Hwang JH. Emerging HIFU applications in cancer therapy. International Journal of Hyperthermia. 2015;31(3):302-309. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/02656736.2014.969789

    work page arXiv 2015

  11. [11]

    HIFU Tissue Ablation: Concept and Devices

    ter Haar G. HIFU Tissue Ablation: Concept and Devices. In: 2016:3-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22536-4_1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22536-4_1 2016

  12. [12]

    Intraoperative Imaging with a Therapeutic Computed Tomographic Scanner

    Lunsford DL. Intraoperative Imaging with a Therapeutic Computed Tomographic Scanner. Neurosurgery. Published online 1984:559-561

    work page 1984

  13. [13]

    Development and implementation of intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging and its neurosurgical applications

    Black PM, Moriarty T, Alexander E 3rd, Stieg P, Woodard EJ, Gleason PL, Martin CH, Kikinis R, Schwartz RB, Jolesz FA. Development and implementation of intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging and its neurosurgical applications. In: Neurosurgery. 1997:831-845

    work page 1997

  14. [14]

    Image-Guided Interventions: Technology Review and Clinical Applications

    Cleary K, Peters TM. Image-Guided Interventions: Technology Review and Clinical Applications. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2010;12(1):119-142. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-070909- 105249

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-070909- 2010

  15. [15]

    Least-Squares Fitting of Two 3-D Point Sets

    Arun KS, Huang TS, Blostein SD. Least-Squares Fitting of Two 3-D Point Sets. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 1987;PAMI-9(5):698-700. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.1987.4767965

    work page arXiv 1987

  16. [16]

    Deformable Medical Image Registration: A Survey

    Sotiras A, Davatzikos C, Paragios N. Deformable Medical Image Registration: A Survey. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2013;32(7):1153-1190. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2013.2265603

    arXiv 2013

  17. [17]

    Deformable Image Registration For Radiation Therapy Planning: Algorithms And Applications

    Kaus MR, Brock KK. Deformable Image Registration For Radiation Therapy Planning: Algorithms And Applications. In: 2007:1-28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812770042_0001

    work page doi:10.1142/9789812770042_0001 2007

  18. [18]

    The early history of X-ray diagnosis with emphasis on the contributions of physics 1895-1915

    Mould RF. The early history of X-ray diagnosis with emphasis on the contributions of physics 1895-1915. Phys Med Biol. 1995;40(11):1741-1787. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/40/11/001

    work page doi:10.1088/0031-9155/40/11/001 1915

  19. [19]

    Surgeon-Performed Ultrasound

    Rozycki GS. Surgeon-Performed Ultrasound. Ann Surg. 1998;228(1):16-28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199807000-00004

    work page doi:10.1097/00000658-199807000-00004 1998

  20. [20]

    Optical innovations in surgery

    de Boer E, Harlaar NJ, Taruttis A, et al. Optical innovations in surgery. British Journal of Surgery. 2015;102(2):e56-e72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9713

    work page doi:10.1002/bjs.9713 2015

  21. [21]

    History of Image-Guided Therapy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital

    Jolesz FA. History of Image-Guided Therapy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. In: Intraoperative Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy. Springer New York; 2014:25-45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4614-7657-3_2

    doi:10.1007/978-1- 2014

  22. [22]

    Review of the Free Research Software for Computer-Assisted Interventions

    Amla Z, Khehra PS, Mathialagan A, Lugez E. Review of the Free Research Software for Computer-Assisted Interventions. Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine. 2024;37(1):386-401. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-023-00912-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s10278-023-00912-y 2024

  23. [23]

    An Integrated Visualization System for Surgical Planning and Guidance Using Image Fusion and Interventional Imaging

    Gering DT, Nabavi A, Kikinis R, et al. An Integrated Visualization System for Surgical Planning and Guidance Using Image Fusion and Interventional Imaging. In: 1999:809-819. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/10704282_88

    work page doi:10.1007/10704282_88 1999

  24. [24]

    Strategies to improve the signal and noise performance of active matrix, flat‐panel imagers for diagnostic x‐ray applications

    Antonuk LE, Jee K ‐W., El‐Mohri Y, et al. Strategies to improve the signal and noise performance of active matrix, flat‐panel imagers for diagnostic x‐ray applications. Med Phys. 2000;27(2):289-306. doi: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.598831

    work page doi:10.1118/1.598831 2000

  25. [25]

    A personal perspective on the development and future of cone‐beam CT for image‐ guided radiotherapy

    Jaffray DA. A personal perspective on the development and future of cone‐beam CT for image‐ guided radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2023;50(S1):54-57. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.16238

    work page doi:10.1002/mp.16238 2023

  26. [26]

    Volume CT with a flat‐panel detector on a mobile, isocentric C‐ arm: Pre‐clinical investigation in guidance of minimally invasive surgery

    Siewerdsen JH, Moseley DJ, Burch S, et al. Volume CT with a flat‐panel detector on a mobile, isocentric C‐ arm: Pre‐clinical investigation in guidance of minimally invasive surgery. Med Phys. 2005;32(1):241-254. doi: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1836331

    work page doi:10.1118/1.1836331 2005

  27. [27]

    Cone beam CT imaging for bronchoscopy: a technical review

    Setser R, Chintalapani G, Bhadra K, Casal RF. Cone beam CT imaging for bronchoscopy: a technical review. J Thorac Dis. 2020;12(12):7416-7428. doi: https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-2382

    work page doi:10.21037/jtd-20-2382 2020

  28. [28]

    Intraoperative cone‐beam CT for guidance of head and neck surgery: Assessment of dose and image quality using a C‐arm prototype

    Daly MJ, Siewerdsen JH, Moseley DJ, Jaffray DA, Irish JC. Intraoperative cone‐beam CT for guidance of head and neck surgery: Assessment of dose and image quality using a C‐arm prototype. Med Phys. 2006;33(10):3767-3780. doi: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2349687

    work page doi:10.1118/1.2349687 2006

  29. [29]

    Review of intraoperative imaging and planning techniques in permanent seed prostate brachytherapy

    Polo A, Salembier C, Venselaar J, Hoskin P. Review of intraoperative imaging and planning techniques in permanent seed prostate brachytherapy. Radiotherapy and Oncology. 2010;94(1):12-23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2009.12.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2009.12.012 2010

  30. [30]

    Cone beam computed tomography-guided thin/ultrathin bronchoscopy for diagnosis of peripheral lung nodules: a prospective pilot study

    Casal RF, Sarkiss M, Jones AK, et al. Cone beam computed tomography-guided thin/ultrathin bronchoscopy for diagnosis of peripheral lung nodules: a prospective pilot study. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(12):6950-6959. doi: https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2018.11.21

    work page doi:10.21037/jtd.2018.11.21 2018

  31. [31]

    Imaging in Interventional Radiology: 2043 and Beyond

    Brock KK, Chen SR, Sheth RA, Siewerdsen JH. Imaging in Interventional Radiology: 2043 and Beyond. Radiology. 2023;308(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230146

    work page doi:10.1148/radiol.230146 2043

  32. [32]

    A Review of Deep Learning CT Reconstruction: Concepts, Limitations, and Promise in Clinical Practice

    Szczykutowicz TP, Toia G V., Dhanantwari A, Nett B. A Review of Deep Learning CT Reconstruction: Concepts, Limitations, and Promise in Clinical Practice. Curr Radiol Rep. 2022;10(9):101-115. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-022-00399-5

    doi:10.1007/s40134-022-00399-5 2022

  33. [33]

    A survey on deep learning in medical image registration: New technologies, uncertainty, evaluation metrics, and beyond

    Chen J, Liu Y, Wei S, et al. A survey on deep learning in medical image registration: New technologies, uncertainty, evaluation metrics, and beyond. Med Image Anal. 2025;100:103385. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2024.103385

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Source-detector trajectory optimization in cone-beam computed tomography: a comprehensive review on today’s state- of-the-art

    Hatamikia S, Biguri A, Herl G, et al. Source-detector trajectory optimization in cone-beam computed tomography: a comprehensive review on today’s state- of-the-art. Phys Med Biol. 2022;67(16):16TR03. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ac8590

    doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ac8590 2022

  35. [35]

    Registration of Tomographic Images to X- Ray Projections for Use in Image Guided Interventions

    Penney GP. Registration of Tomographic Images to X- Ray Projections for Use in Image Guided Interventions. 2000

    work page 2000

  36. [36]

    Multi-body 3D–2D registration for image-guided reduction of pelvic dislocation in orthopaedic trauma surgery

    Han R, Uneri A, Ketcha M, et al. Multi-body 3D–2D registration for image-guided reduction of pelvic dislocation in orthopaedic trauma surgery. Phys Med Biol. 2020;65(13):135009. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ab843c

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ab843c 2020

  37. [37]

    A Review of Medical Image Registration for Different Modalities

    Darzi F, Bocklitz T. A Review of Medical Image Registration for Different Modalities. Bioengineering. 2024;11(8):786. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11080786

    work page doi:10.3390/bioengineering11080786 2024

  38. [38]

    Review and recommendations on deformable image registration uncertainties for radiotherapy applications

    Nenoff L, Amstutz F, Murr M, et al. Review and recommendations on deformable image registration uncertainties for radiotherapy applications. Phys Med Biol. 2023;68(24):24TR01. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ad0d8a

    doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ad0d8a 2023

  39. [39]

    A Survey of Non‐ Rigid 3D Registration

    Deng B, Yao Y, Dyke RM, Zhang J. A Survey of Non‐ Rigid 3D Registration. Computer Graphics Forum. 2022;41(2):559-589. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14502

    doi:10.1111/cgf.14502 2022

  40. [40]

    Fracture reduction planning and guidance in orthopaedic trauma surgery via multi-body image registration

    Han R, Uneri A, Vijayan R, et al. Fracture reduction planning and guidance in orthopaedic trauma surgery via multi-body image registration. Med Image Anal. 2021;68:101917. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2020.101917

    work page arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    MIND Demons: Symmetric Diffeomorphic Deformable Registration of MR and CT for Image-Guided Spine Surgery

    Reaungamornrat S, De Silva T, Uneri A, et al. MIND Demons: Symmetric Diffeomorphic Deformable Registration of MR and CT for Image-Guided Spine Surgery. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016;35(11):2413-

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    Joint synthesis and registration network for deformable MR-CBCT image registration for neurosurgical guidance

    Han R, Jones CK, Lee J, et al. Joint synthesis and registration network for deformable MR-CBCT image registration for neurosurgical guidance. Phys Med Biol. 2022;67(12):125008. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ac72ef

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ac72ef 2022

  43. [43]

    The impact of extended reality on surgery: a scoping review

    Zhang J, Lu V, Khanduja V. The impact of extended reality on surgery: a scoping review. Int Orthop. 2023;47(3):611-621. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-022-05663-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s00264-022-05663-z 2023

  44. [44]

    Past, present and future of surgical robotics

    Mayor N, Coppola AS, Challacombe B. Past, present and future of surgical robotics. Trends in Urology & Men’s Health. 2022;13(1):7-10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/tre.834

    work page doi:10.1002/tre.834 2022

  45. [45]

    Technical review of the da Vinci surgical telemanipulator

    Freschi C, Ferrari V, Melfi F, Ferrari M, Mosca F, Cuschieri A. Technical review of the da Vinci surgical telemanipulator. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. 2013;9(4):396-406. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1468

    work page doi:10.1002/rcs.1468 2013

  46. [46]

    The landscape of surgical robotics in orthopedics surgery

    Yang HY, Seon JK. The landscape of surgical robotics in orthopedics surgery. Biomed Eng Lett. 2023;13(4):537-542. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13534-023-00321-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s13534-023-00321-8 2023

  47. [47]

    Intra-operative Measurement of Brain Deformation

    Frisken S, Unadkat P, Yang X, Miga MI, Golby AJ. Intra-operative Measurement of Brain Deformation. In: 2019:303-319. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 030-04996-6_12

    doi:10.1007/978-3- 2019

  48. [48]

    Examining the benefits of extended reality in neurosurgery: A systematic review

    Dadario NB, Quinoa T, Khatri D, Boockvar J, Langer D, D’Amico RS. Examining the benefits of extended reality in neurosurgery: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 2021;94:41-53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2021.09.037

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2021.09.037 2021

  49. [49]

    Real-Time 3-D Video Reconstruction for Guidance of Transventricular Neurosurgery

    Vagdargi P, Uneri A, Zhang X, et al. Real-Time 3-D Video Reconstruction for Guidance of Transventricular Neurosurgery. IEEE Trans Med Robot Bionics. 2023;5(3):669-682. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TMRB.2023.329245

    work page arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Deformable 3D–2D image registration and analysis of global spinal alignment in long‐length intraoperative spine imaging

    Zhang X, Uneri A, Huang Y, et al. Deformable 3D–2D image registration and analysis of global spinal alignment in long‐length intraoperative spine imaging. Med Phys. 2022;49(9):5715-5727. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.15819

    work page doi:10.1002/mp.15819 2022

  51. [51]

    A spatial registration method based on 2D–3D registration for an augmented reality spinal surgery navigation system

    Zhang J, Yang Z, Jiang S, Zhou Z. A spatial registration method based on 2D–3D registration for an augmented reality spinal surgery navigation system. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. 2024;20(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2612

    work page doi:10.1002/rcs.2612 2024

  52. [52]

    https://arpa- h.gov/news-and-events/arpa-h-announces-awards- develop-novel-technologies-precise-tumor-removal

    ARPA-H announces awards to develop novel technologies for precise tumor removal . https://arpa- h.gov/news-and-events/arpa-h-announces-awards- develop-novel-technologies-precise-tumor-removal

    work page

  53. [53]

    The operating room and the need for an IT infrastructure and standards

    Lemke HU, Vannier MW. The operating room and the need for an IT infrastructure and standards. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2006;1(3):117-121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-006-0051-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11548-006-0051-7 2006

  54. [54]

    Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM radiation therapy committee task group

    Kutcher GJ, LCMGWFHSLRJMJRP et al. Comprehensive QA for radiation oncology: report of AAPM radiation therapy committee task group . Published online 1994:581-581

    work page 1994

  55. [55]

    Translating computational innovations into reality: focus on the users! In: Tomaszewski JE, Ward AD, eds

    Krupinski EA. Translating computational innovations into reality: focus on the users! In: Tomaszewski JE, Ward AD, eds. Medical Imaging 2023: Digital and Computational Pathology. SPIE; 2023:507. doi: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2663067

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2663067 2023

  56. [56]

    Surgical data science – from concepts toward clinical translation

    Maier-Hein L, Eisenmann M, Sarikaya D, et al. Surgical data science – from concepts toward clinical translation. Med Image Anal. 2022;76:102306. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2021.102306

    work page arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    Surgineering: a new type of collaboration among surgeons and engineers

    Feussner H, Wilhelm D, Navab N, Knoll A, Lüth T. Surgineering: a new type of collaboration among surgeons and engineers. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2019;14(2):187-190. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1893-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s11548-018-1893-5 2019

  58. [58]

    Surgineering: curriculum concept for experiential learning in upper-level biomedical engineering

    Siewerdsen JH, Adrales GL, Anderson WS, et al. Surgineering: curriculum concept for experiential learning in upper-level biomedical engineering. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2020;15(1):1-14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-019-02094-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11548-019-02094-x 2020

  59. [59]

    Job Shop Scheduling Problem and Solution Algorithms: A Review

    Cebi C, Atac E, Sahingoz OK. Job Shop Scheduling Problem and Solution Algorithms: A Review. In: 2020 11th International Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT). IEEE; 2020:1-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCCNT49239.2020.9225581

    work page arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    Operating room planning and surgical case scheduling: a review of literature

    Zhu S, Fan W, Yang S, Pei J, Pardalos PM. Operating room planning and surgical case scheduling: a review of literature. J Comb Optim. 2019;37(3):757-805. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-018-0322-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s10878-018-0322-6 2019

  61. [61]

    https://bmjgroup.com/adverse-events- affect-over-1-in-3-surgery-patients-us-study-finds/

    Adverse events affect over 1 in 3 surgery patients, US study finds. https://bmjgroup.com/adverse-events- affect-over-1-in-3-surgery-patients-us-study-finds/

    work page

  62. [62]

    Improving patient safety in the operating theatre and perioperative care: obstacles, interventions, and priorities for accelerating progress

    Sevdalis N, Hull L, Birnbach DJ. Improving patient safety in the operating theatre and perioperative care: obstacles, interventions, and priorities for accelerating progress. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109:i3-i16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aes391

    work page doi:10.1093/bja/aes391 2012

  63. [63]

    Performance assessment of surgical tracking systems based on statistical process control and longitudinal QA

    Butz I, Fernandez M, Uneri A, Theodore N, Anderson WS, Siewerdsen JH. Performance assessment of surgical tracking systems based on statistical process control and longitudinal QA. Computer Assisted Surgery. 2023;28(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/24699322.2023.2275522

    work page arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    AAPM Task Group Report 311: Guidance for performance evaluation of fluorescence‐guided surgery systems

    Pogue BW, Zhu TC, Ntziachristos V, et al. AAPM Task Group Report 311: Guidance for performance evaluation of fluorescence‐guided surgery systems. Med Phys. 2024;51(2):740-771. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.16849

    work page doi:10.1002/mp.16849 2024

  65. [65]

    Report of AAPM TG 135: Quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery

    Dieterich S, Cavedon C, Chuang CF, et al. Report of AAPM TG 135: Quality assurance for robotic radiosurgery. Med Phys. 2011;38(6Part1):2914-2936. doi: https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3579139

    work page doi:10.1118/1.3579139 2011

  66. [66]

    High- precision quality assurance of robotic couches with six degrees of freedom

    Cheon W, Cho J, Ahn SH, Han Y, Choi DH. High- precision quality assurance of robotic couches with six degrees of freedom. Physica Medica. 2018;49:28-33. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.04.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.04.008 2018

  67. [67]

    QUALITY ASSURANCE IN ROBOTIC PROSTATECTOMY AT A MULTI-USER COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

    Hollander JB, Ibrahim IA, Petzel K. QUALITY ASSURANCE IN ROBOTIC PROSTATECTOMY AT A MULTI-USER COMMUNITY HOSPITAL. Journal of Urology. 2008;179(4S):607-607. doi:10.1016/S0022- 5347(08)61778-4

    doi:10.1016/s0022- 2008

  68. [68]

    Surgical innovation and quality assurance: Can we have both? Semin Pediatr Surg

    Georgeson K. Surgical innovation and quality assurance: Can we have both? Semin Pediatr Surg. 2015;24(3):112-114. doi: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2015.02.007

    work page doi:10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2015.02.007 2015

  69. [69]

    A standardized method for accuracy study of MRI- compatible robots: case study- a body-mounted robot

    Siampli E, Monfaredi R, Pieper S, Li P, Beskin V, Cleary K. A standardized method for accuracy study of MRI- compatible robots: case study- a body-mounted robot. In: Fei B, Linte CA, eds. Medical Imaging 2020: Image- Guided Procedures, Robotic Interventions, and Modeling. SPIE; 2020:95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2550575

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2550575 2020

  70. [70]

    Application of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis in a Radiology Department

    Thornton E, Brook OR, Mendiratta-Lala M, Hallett DT, Kruskal JB. Application of Failure Mode and Effect Analysis in a Radiology Department. RadioGraphics. 2011;31(1):281-293. doi: https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.311105018

    work page doi:10.1148/rg.311105018 2011

  71. [71]

    A Review of Healthcare Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (HFMEA) in Radiotherapy

    Giardina M, Cantone MC, Tomarchio E, Veronese I. A Review of Healthcare Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (HFMEA) in Radiotherapy. Health Phys. 2016;111(4):317-326. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0000000000000536

    work page doi:10.1097/hp.0000000000000536 2016

  72. [72]

    Leading High-Reliability Organizations in Healthcare.; 2016

    Morrow R. Leading High-Reliability Organizations in Healthcare.; 2016

    work page 2016

  73. [73]

    Understanding Costs of Care in the Operating Room

    Childers CP, Maggard-Gibbons M. Understanding Costs of Care in the Operating Room. JAMA Surg. 2018;153(4):e176233. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.6233

    work page arXiv 2018

  74. [74]

    Factors affecting healthcare workers burnout and their conceptual models: scoping review

    Nagle E, Griskevica I, Rajevska O, Ivanovs A, Mihailova S, Skruzkalne I. Factors affecting healthcare workers burnout and their conceptual models: scoping review. BMC Psychol. 2024;12(1):637. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02130-9

    work page doi:10.1186/s40359-024-02130-9 2024

  75. [75]

    The Prevalence of Wrong Level Surgery Among Spine Surgeons

    Mody MG, Nourbakhsh A, Stahl DL, Gibbs M, Alfawareh M, Garges KJ. The Prevalence of Wrong Level Surgery Among Spine Surgeons. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(2):194-198. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816043d1

    work page doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e31816043d1 1976

  76. [76]

    Retained Surgical Sponges (Gossypiboma)

    Bani-Hani KE, Gharaibeh KA, Yagha RJ. Retained Surgical Sponges (Gossypiboma). Asian J Surg. 2005;28(2):109-115. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1015-9584(09)60273-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s1015-9584(09)60273-6 2005

  77. [77]

    Never Events

    Zahiri HR, Stromberg J, Skupsky H, et al. Prevention of 3 “Never Events” in the Operating Room: Fires, Gossypiboma, and Wrong-Site Surgery. Surg Innov. 2011;18(1):55-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350610389196

    work page doi:10.1177/1553350610389196 2011

  78. [78]

    Managing the Prevention of Retained Surgical Instruments

    Egorova NN, Moskowitz A, Gelijns A, et al. Managing the Prevention of Retained Surgical Instruments. Ann Surg. 2008;247(1):13-18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3180f633be

    work page doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3180f633be 2008

  79. [79]

    Redefining and reinvigorating the role of physics in clinical medicine: A Report from the <scp>AAPM</scp> Medical Physics 3.0 Ad Hoc Committee

    Samei E, Pawlicki T, Bourland D, et al. Redefining and reinvigorating the role of physics in clinical medicine: A Report from the <scp>AAPM</scp> Medical Physics 3.0 Ad Hoc Committee. Med Phys. 2018;45(9). doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13087

    work page doi:10.1002/mp.13087 2018

  80. [2024]

    https://www.auntminnie.com/clinical- news/article/15707639/siemens-healthineers- siemens-posts-strong-revenues-for-q4-fiscal-year- 2024#:~:text=Revenues%20in%20Siemens’%20Diagnos tic%20segment,from%20%243.82%20billion%20last%2 0year

    work page arXiv 2024

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.