Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 63 references

A general-purpose humanoid teleoperating ordinary wristed laparoscopic tools can complete live porcine cholecystectomies without conversion.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 14:29 UTC pith:O552DEZA

load-bearing objection First multi-stage evaluation that actually puts a commercial humanoid through two live porcine cholecystectomies with ordinary wristed tools; feasibility claim holds, clinical readiness is correctly not claimed. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07972 v1 pith:O552DEZA submitted 2026-07-08 cs.RO

In vivo feasibility study of humanoid robots in surgery

Zekai Liang , Nikita Thareja , Peihan Zhang , Calvin Joyce , Soofiyan Atar , Florian Richter , Garth Jacobsen , Shanglei Liu
show 2 more authors
Ryan Broderick Michael Yip
This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords humanoid robotslaparoscopic surgeryteleoperationremote center of motionminimally invasive surgeryin vivo feasibilitysurgical roboticsporcine model
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.

This paper asks how close today's off-the-shelf humanoid robots are to the precision and safety needed for minimally invasive surgery. The authors build a teleoperation system that lets a Unitree G1 drive commercial, non-robotic wristed instruments through trocars under a software remote-center-of-motion constraint, then measure it on the bench, in dry-lab tasks against da Vinci platforms and manual laparoscopy, and finally in two live porcine cholecystectomies. Both animal cases finished robotically without conversion; dry-lab scores place the humanoid between manual surgery and mature surgical robots. The work therefore supplies the first quantitative, end-to-end evidence that contemporary humanoids can already execute a standard laparoscopic procedure in vivo, while also cataloguing the latency, workspace, calibration-drift, and sterility gaps that still block human clinical use. A reader who cares about hospital staffing shortages or lower-cost robotic access now has concrete performance numbers instead of speculation.

Core claim

A commercially available general-purpose humanoid, teleoperated through a master-tool console and using ordinary manual wristed instruments held under a vision-localized remote-center-of-motion constraint, can complete full laparoscopic cholecystectomies in a living porcine model without conversion to open or conventional laparoscopy; dry-lab metrics show its speed and error rates sit between manual laparoscopy and established purpose-built surgical robots.

What carries the argument

Inverse-mapping control of an extended passive kinematic chain: the humanoid wrist pose is solved so that a non-actuated commercial instrument pivots about a vision-detected trocar (RCM) while the tool-tip tracks the master-tool command, with jaw opening driven by a servo finger interface.

Load-bearing premise

The manually measured geometry and fixed gearing ratio of the commercial instruments, plus vision-based RCM tracking with temporal filtering, stay accurate enough under live respiration and base drift to keep the instrument safe and useful.

What would settle it

A third live porcine cholecystectomy in which the same teleoperation stack produces an unrecoverable RCM violation, force-related tissue injury, or forced conversion to open surgery under the predefined safety criteria.

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

If this is right

  • Humanoid platforms can already execute core steps of a standard laparoscopic workflow under physiologic conditions, establishing an early quantitative benchmark for surgical humanoids.
  • Dry-lab and in-vivo gaps (latency ~156 ms, curved-path tracking error, frequent recalibration pauses) become concrete engineering targets before human use.
  • Because the robot uses ordinary human-designed tools and fits existing OR footprints, multi-purpose hospital robots become a plausible lower-cost alternative to single-function surgical systems.
  • Sterility, force generation, and instrument-exchange workflows must be solved before the same architecture can move beyond animal feasibility studies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If open-source instruments with published CAD geometry replaced the hand-measured commercial tools, the dominant source of command-execution error could shrink enough to close much of the gap with purpose-built robots.
  • The same RCM-constrained teleoperation stack could be stress-tested on longer, multi-quadrant procedures (e.g., colectomy) to reveal whether base-drift and reach limits scale linearly with case duration.
  • Once latency and recalibration pauses drop below clinical thresholds, the humanoid form factor may allow a single platform to alternate between bedside assistance and console surgery without redocking large arms.

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. The manuscript develops a teleoperation framework that lets a general-purpose humanoid (Unitree G1) manipulate commercial non-robotic wristed laparoscopic instruments under a vision-based remote-center-of-motion (RCM) constraint. It evaluates the system through (i) benchtop workspace and motion-accuracy characterization (latency ~156 ms; line RMS 1.30 mm; circle radial RMS 10.4 mm), (ii) dry-lab user studies (O-ring transfer n=18; FLS peg transfer n=13) that place humanoid performance between manual laparoscopy and dVRK/da Vinci Xi with paired statistics, and (iii) two in-vivo porcine laparoscopic cholecystectomies completed without conversion, with segment times, pause counts, and post-procedure surveys. The central claim is technical feasibility of completing standard cholecystectomies with a contemporary humanoid, together with a quantitative map of remaining gaps relative to purpose-built surgical robots.

Significance. If the reported results hold, this is the first systematic, multi-stage evidence base that a commercially available general-purpose humanoid can execute a full standard laparoscopic procedure in vivo. The work supplies concrete, falsifiable numbers (latency, RMS tracking, paired effect sizes, active console times, major/minor pause counts) rather than demonstration videos alone, and it releases code (Zenodo DOI). These data are useful both for the surgical-robotics community assessing humanoid readiness and for the humanoid community seeking high-stakes benchmarks. The transparent scoping of kinematic-calibration and RCM-drift limitations strengthens rather than weakens the contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. §2.1.2 and §4.3: The extended passive kinematic model relies on manually measured lengths (l0, l12, l1, offsets) and a gearing ratio fixed at k=2. The paper correctly reports the resulting accuracy gap (circle RMS 10.4 mm) and the in-vivo consequence (multiple recalibration pauses). For the feasibility claim this is acceptable, but the manuscript should state explicitly whether any of these geometric parameters were re-tuned after the first animal case or held fixed from the dry-lab calibration; without that statement a reader cannot judge whether the second-case improvement (Table 4) reflects learning or parameter adjustment.
  2. §2.3 / Table 4: n=2 live cases is appropriate for a first feasibility report, yet the conversion criteria and the definition of “major pause” (>3 min) are introduced only after the results. Moving the a-priori conversion criteria and pause taxonomy into Methods (or an early subsection of Results) would make the safety claim more auditable and would prevent any appearance of post-hoc thresholding.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 2D(ii–iii) captions: the text refers to “line and (ii) circle” while the figure labels are D(ii)/D(iii); align numbering.
  2. Table 1 vs. Table 2: the first task uses dVRK, the second da Vinci Xi; a one-sentence note explaining the platform switch would remove ambiguity for readers unfamiliar with the two systems.
  3. Eq. (20): the gearing ratio k=2 is stated without a measurement protocol; a short clause on how it was identified (e.g., static angle comparison) would improve reproducibility.
  4. §2.3.1 survey (n=4): clarify that the single console-operator score is from the same senior surgeon who performed both cases, so that readers do not over-interpret inter-rater variance.
  5. References [51] and [52] on latency appear as 2025–2026 preprints; verify final citation details at proof stage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: empirical feasibility study with externally measured performance, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

This is a systems/feasibility paper, not a first-principles derivation. Load-bearing claims (workspace reachability, ~156 ms latency, OptiTrack line/circle RMS residuals, dry-lab times/errors/FLS scores vs dVRK and da Vinci Xi, and two completed in-vivo porcine cholecystectomies without conversion) are measured against external instruments, clinical clocks, and animal outcomes. The extended kinematic model (§4.3) and gearing k=2 are obtained once from tool geometry and mechanism identification, then used for control; they are not fitted to force the in-vivo success metric, and benchtop already reports the resulting accuracy gap rather than hiding it. Self-citation of the authors’ Surgie study [40] is background only and is not used as a uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise for the feasibility claim. No prediction equals a fitted target by construction; no ansatz is smuggled in as a forced result. Score 0 is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central feasibility claim rests on standard laparoscopic kinematics, a commercial humanoid platform treated as representative, and a small set of manually measured or hand-chosen geometric and control parameters for the passive instrument chain. No new physical entities are postulated; the free parameters are engineering constants required to close the inverse-mapping loop.

free parameters (4)
  • instrument gearing ratio k = 2
    Set to 2 from the tool’s internal mechanism; used to map handle angles θ1,θ2 to tip angles θ3,θ4 (§4.3).
  • manual geometric lengths (l0, l12, l1, offsets)
    Commercial instruments lack public CAD; all shaft lengths and handle offsets were measured by hand and enter the extended FK/IK chain (§2.1.2, §4.3).
  • residual weights wt, wa and θmax = θmax=45°
    Hand-chosen weights and 45° soft limit in the Trust-Region Reflective inverse-mapping residual (§4.3).
  • RCM temporal filter parameters
    Unspecified filter used to suppress respiration- and drift-induced RCM motion during live cases (§2.3).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Laparoscopic instruments must pivot about a fixed remote center of motion (RCM) at the trocar; cone angles ~60–90° and 10–20 cm port-to-target distances suffice for most tasks.
    Invoked throughout §2.1.1 and Methods to justify workspace analysis and control formulation; standard MIS literature.
  • domain assumption The Unitree G1 with custom mounts and commercial non-actuated wristed instruments is representative of contemporary general-purpose humanoid technology for the purpose of this evaluation.
    Stated in §2.1 and Introduction; underpins the claim that results speak to the class of platforms rather than one device.
  • ad hoc to paper Vision-based ArUco localization of the physical RCM plus soft temporal filtering yields a sufficiently accurate and safe virtual RCM under live animal conditions.
    Core control premise of the teleoperation framework (§2.1, §2.3, §4.3); recalibrations were still required in vivo.
  • domain assumption Porcine laparoscopic cholecystectomy under IACUC protocol is an adequate first in-vivo proxy for human clinical feasibility assessment.
    Standard translational model used in §2.3; conversion criteria and anesthesia monitoring are described.
invented entities (2)
  • Custom tool-swapping mount with servo-driven finger interface for non-actuated LivsMed instruments no independent evidence
    purpose: Allows the humanoid wrist to drive passive wristed tools and open/close the grasper while preserving articulation.
    Hardware interface introduced in Fig. 1 and §4.1; no independent commercial existence claimed.
  • Inverse-mapping residual for passive extended kinematic chain under RCM constraint no independent evidence
    purpose: Maps desired tool-tip pose to humanoid wrist pose given only passive instrument geometry.
    Mathematical construction in §4.3; specific residual and TRF solve are paper-specific.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 25310 in / 3179 out tokens · 40533 ms · 2026-07-10T14:29:12.022932+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent advances in actuation, control and learning have rapidly pushed humanoid robots from a distant vision towards near-term real-world deployment. Healthcare is a particularly pressing domain, in which staffing shortages and increasing care demand are widening the gap between clinical workload and available skilled labour. Although current automation has largely focused on digital and logistical tasks, much hospital work remains embodied, requiring mobility, manipulation and safe interaction in human-designed environments. Humanoid form factors offer unique potential, particularly for assisting with surgical tasks. Traditionally, robotic systems for surgery are purpose-built platforms such as Intuitive Surgical's da Vinci Surgical System, and it remains unclear how close current humanoid systems are to meeting the precision, control and safety requirements of minimally invasive surgery. Here we present a systematic evaluation of contemporary humanoid technology for laparoscopic surgical tasks. We develop a humanoid-based laparoscopic teleoperation framework using general-purpose instruments and assess its abilities through benchtop characterization, dry-laboratory user studies spanning diverse surgical experience levels and in vivo porcine studies. Across these evaluations, we quantify technical feasibility, task performance and clinical readiness relative to established surgical platforms. Together, our study provides an evidence-based assessment of current humanoid abilities and limitations for surgical applications, highlighting both their promise and key technical challenges that must be addressed before clinical deployment.

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

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    M.et al.Proprioceptive actuator design in the mit cheetah: Impact mitigation and high-bandwidth physical interaction for dynamic legged robots

    Wensing, P. M.et al.Proprioceptive actuator design in the mit cheetah: Impact mitigation and high-bandwidth physical interaction for dynamic legged robots. Ieee transactions on robotics33, 509–522 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Grimminger, F.et al.An open torque-controlled modular robot architecture for legged locomotion research.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters5, 3650–3657 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Chignoli, M., Kim, D., Stanger-Jones, E. & Kim, S.The mit humanoid robot: Design, motion planning, and control for acrobatic behaviors.2020 IEEE-RAS 20th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 1–8 (IEEE, 2021)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    & Rezazadeh, S

    Semasinghe, C., Taylor, D. & Rezazadeh, S. The design and manufac- turing of mithra: A humanoid robot with anthropomorphic attributes and high-performance actuators.Robotics14, 28 (2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    & Kim, S

    Khazoom, C., Hong, S., Chignoli, M., Stanger-Jones, E. & Kim, S. Tailoring solution accuracy for fast whole-body model predictive control of legged robots. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters(2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Z.et al.Whole-body model-predictive control of legged robots with mujoco.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04613(2025)

    Zhang, J. Z.et al.Whole-body model-predictive control of legged robots with mujoco.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04613(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Belvedere, T., Scianca, N., Lanari, L. & Oriolo, G.Joint-level is-mpc: A whole- body mpc with centroidal feasibility for humanoid locomotion.2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 11240–11247 (IEEE, 2024). 29

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Hierarchical Learning Framework for Whole-Body Model Predictive Control of a Real Humanoid Robot

    Ishihara, K., Gomi, H. & Morimoto, J. Hierarchical learning framework for whole-body model predictive control of a real humanoid robot.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08488(2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    V´ ıtor, G. d. A., Melo, D. C., Maximo, M. R. & Afonso, R. J. Imitation learning of a model predictive controller for real-time humanoid robot walking.Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence143, 109919 (2025)

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Radosavovic, I.et al.Real-world humanoid locomotion with reinforcement learning.Science Robotics9, eadi9579 (2024)

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Learning Humanoid Locomotion over Challenging Terrain

    Radosavovic, I., Kamat, S., Darrell, T. & Malik, J. Learning humanoid locomotion over challenging terrain.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03654(2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15200(2025)

    He, T.et al.Viral: Visual sim-to-real at scale for humanoid loco-manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15200(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    OpenVLA: An Open-Source Vision-Language-Action Model

    Kim, M. J.et al.Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09246(2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Belkhale, S.et al.Rt-h: Action hierarchies using language.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01823(2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Wen, J.et al.Tinyvla: Towards fast, data-efficient vision-language-action models for robotic manipulation.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters(2025)

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    Zheng, R.et al.Tracevla: Visual trace prompting enhances spatial-temporal awareness for generalist robotic policies.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10345(2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    O’Neill, A.et al. Open x-embodiment: Robotic learning datasets and rt-x models: Open x-embodiment collaboration 0.2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 6892–6903 (IEEE, 2024)

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Figure exceeds$1 billion in Series C funding at$39 billion post-money valuation

    Figure AI. Figure exceeds$1 billion in Series C funding at$39 billion post-money valuation. Press Release (2025). URL https://www.figure.ai/news/series-c. Accessed: 2025-12-19

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    & Turner, S

    Moulton, J. & Turner, S. Humanoid robot developer 1X targets$1 billion in new funding. Bloomberg (2025). URL https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ 2025-09-23/humanoid-robot-developer-1x-targets-1-billion-funding. Accessed: 2025-12-19

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Health workforce (2023)

    World Health Organization. Health workforce (2023). URL https://www.who. int/health-topics/health-workforce. Accessed: 2025-07-12

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Burnout and patient safety: An occupational phe- nomenon.Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing38, 128–130 (2024)

    World Health Organization. Burnout and patient safety: An occupational phe- nomenon.Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing38, 128–130 (2024). URL https://journals.lww.com/jpnnjournal/fulltext/2024/04000/burnout and 30 patient safety an occupational.11.aspx. Epub: 2024-05-13; Accessed: 2025-07-12

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Ageing and health

    World Health Organization. Ageing and health. WHO Fact Sheet (2025). URL https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health. Accessed: 2025-12-19

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Report, T. R. Diligent robotics hires 2 former Cruise execs to scale Moxi.The Robot Report(2025). URL https://www.therobotreport.com/ diligent-robotics-hires-2-former-cruise-execs-to-scale-moxi/. Accessed: 2025-12- 19

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Elon musk says Tesla robot will perform ‘superhuman’ surgeries.Becker’s Hospital Review(2025)

    Bruce, G. Elon musk says Tesla robot will perform ‘superhuman’ surgeries.Becker’s Hospital Review(2025). URL https://www. beckershospitalreview.com/healthcare-information-technology/innovation/ elon-musk-says-tesla-robot-will-perform-superhuman-surgeries/. Accessed: 2025-12-19

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    R., Castellanos, A

    Lanfranco, A. R., Castellanos, A. E., Desai, J. P. & Meyers, W. C. Robotic surgery: a current perspective.Annals of surgery239, 14–21 (2004)

    work page 2004

  26. [26]

    H., Menciassi, A., Fichtinger, G., Fiorini, P

    Taylor, R. H., Menciassi, A., Fichtinger, G., Fiorini, P. & Dario, P. inMedical robotics and computer-integrated surgery Springer handbook of robotics1657–1684 (Springer, 2016)

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    M., Bernardes, M

    Marinho, M. M., Bernardes, M. C. & B´ o, A. P.A programmable remote center- of-motion controller for minimally invasive surgery using the dual quaternion framework.5th IEEE RAS/EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, 339–344 (IEEE, 2014)

    work page 2014

  28. [28]

    M., Adorno, B

    Marinho, M. M., Adorno, B. V., Harada, K. & Mitsuishi, M. Dynamic active constraints for surgical robots using vector-field inequalities.IEEE Transactions on Robotics35, 1166–1185 (2019)

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    & Wang, L.Admittance control for adaptive remote center of motion in robotic laparoscopic surgery.2024 21st International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots (UR), 51–57 (IEEE, 2024)

    Nasiri, E. & Wang, L.Admittance control for adaptive remote center of motion in robotic laparoscopic surgery.2024 21st International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots (UR), 51–57 (IEEE, 2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    & Hasegawa, Y

    Davila, A., Colan, J. & Hasegawa, Y. Real-time inverse kinematics for robotic manipulation under remote center-of-motion constraint using memetic evolution. Journal of Computational Design and Engineering11, 248–264 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Hagn, U.et al.Dlr mirosurge: a versatile system for research in endoscopic telesurgery.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery5, 183–193 (2010)

    work page 2010

  32. [32]

    Industrial Robot: An International Journal35, 324–336 (2008)

    Hagn, U.et al.The dlr miro: a versatile lightweight robot for surgical applications. Industrial Robot: An International Journal35, 324–336 (2008). 31

    work page 2008

  33. [33]

    Surgical endoscopy36, 206–215 (2022)

    Cofran, L.et al.Barriers to safety and efficiency in robotic surgery docking. Surgical endoscopy36, 206–215 (2022)

    work page 2022

  34. [34]

    Kanji, F.et al.Room size influences flow in robotic-assisted surgery.International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health18, 7984 (2021)

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    & Merdin-Uygur, E

    Ozturkcan, S. & Merdin-Uygur, E. Humanoid service robots: The future of healthcare?Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases12, 163–169 (2022)

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Hernandez, J. P. T. Compassionate care with autonomous ai humanoid robots in future healthcare delivery: a multisensory simulation of next-generation models. Biomimetics9, 687 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Mlakar, I.et al.Facilitating acceptance, trust, and ethical integration of socially assistive robots among nurses: A quasi-experimental study.Health Policy and Technology14, 101034 (2025)

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    & Croft, E

    Haddadin, S. & Croft, E. inPhysical human–robot interaction Springer handbook of robotics1835–1874 (Springer, 2016)

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    Yang, G.-Z.et al.The grand challenges of science robotics.Science robotics3, eaar7650 (2018)

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    Atar, S.et al.Humanoids in hospitals: A technical study of humanoid surrogates for dexterous medical interventions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12725(2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Battaglia, E.et al.Rethinking autonomous surgery: focusing on enhancement over autonomy.European urology focus7, 696–705 (2021)

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    & Woodall, W

    Macenski, S., Foote, T., Gerkey, B., Lalancette, C. & Woodall, W. Robot oper- ating system 2: Design, architecture, and uses in the wild.Science Robotics 7, eabm6074 (2022). URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/scirobotics. abm6074

    work page doi:10.1126/scirobotics 2022

  43. [43]

    T., Tsao, T.-C., Hubschman, J.-P

    Wilson, J. T., Tsao, T.-C., Hubschman, J.-P. & Schwartz, S.Evaluating remote centers of motion for minimally invasive surgical robots by computer vision.2010 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, 1413–1418 (IEEE, 2010)

    work page 2010

  44. [44]

    Optimal positioning of robotic arms inside the abdominal cavity in pediatric surgery

    de Graaf, P. Optimal positioning of robotic arms inside the abdominal cavity in pediatric surgery. Clinical Internship Report, Surgical Robotics Lab, University of Twente (2020). URL https://surgicalroboticslab.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/ 08/degraaf20-masters.pdf. Accessed: 2025-12-19

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    Afshar, M.et al. Optimal design of a novel spherical scissor linkage remote cen- ter of motion mechanism for medical robotics.2020 IEEE/RSJ International 32 Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 6459–6465 (IEEE, 2020)

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    Freschi, C.et al.Technical review of the da vinci surgical telemanipulator.The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery9, 396–406 (2013)

    work page 2013

  47. [47]

    URL https://www.lmc-clients.com/intuitive/2023/Resources/StaffingGuide/ 1007573-09-USrD-Xi-ORstaff-InServiceGuide-OS4v9.pdf

    Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA.da Vinci Xi Surgical Sys- tem In-Service Guide: OR Staff (Da Vinci OS4 v9)(2021). URL https://www.lmc-clients.com/intuitive/2023/Resources/StaffingGuide/ 1007573-09-USrD-Xi-ORstaff-InServiceGuide-OS4v9.pdf. Accessed: 2025-12-19

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    An open-source research kit for the da vinci®surgical sys- tem.2014 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), 6434–6439 (IEEE, 2014)

    Kazanzides, P.et al. An open-source research kit for the da vinci®surgical sys- tem.2014 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), 6434–6439 (IEEE, 2014)

    work page 2014

  49. [49]

    Richter, F., Orosco, R. K. & Yip, M. C.Motion scaling solutions for improved performance in high delay surgical teleoperation.2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 1590–1595 (IEEE, 2019)

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    Lu, S.et al.Adaptive control of time delay teleoperation system with uncertain dynamics.Frontiers in Neurorobotics16, 928863 (2022)

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Xiong, Z.et al.Extremcontrol: Low-latency humanoid teleoperation with direct extremity control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.11321(2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    & Miura, S

    Ichihara, J. & Miura, S. Quantifying the effects of delays on telerobotic surgical operability via brain activity measurements.International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery1–9 (2025)

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    Ferguson, J. M.et al.Comparing the accuracy of the da vinci xi and da vinci si for image guidance and automation.The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery16, 1–10 (2020)

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    Fls manual skills written instructions and performance guidelines (2014)

    Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Fls manual skills written instructions and performance guidelines (2014). URL https://www.flsprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ Revised-Manual-Skills-Guidelines-February-2014.pdf. Revised February 2014

    work page 2014

  55. [55]

    D., Carroll, M

    Fryar, C. D., Carroll, M. D., Gu, Q., Afful, J. & Ogden, C. L. Anthropometric reference data for children and adults: United states, 2015-2018 (2021)

    work page 2015

  56. [56]

    Nabeel, A.et al.Assessing and evaluating the impact of operative vision com- promise (ovic) on surgeons’ practice: a qualitative study.International Journal of Surgery110, 6972–6981 (2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    Holinka, C. F. & Gurpide, E. Diamine oxidase activity in human decidua and endometrium.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology150, 359–363 33 (1984)

    work page 1984

  58. [58]

    von Strauss und Torney, M.et al.Microcomplications in laparoscopic cholecystec- tomy: impact on duration of surgery and costs.Surgical endoscopy30, 2512–2522 (2016)

    work page 2016

  59. [59]

    C.et al.Robot-assisted surgery: Current applications and future trends in general surgery.Cureus17, e82318 (2024)

    Rojas Burbano, J. C.et al.Robot-assisted surgery: Current applications and future trends in general surgery.Cureus17, e82318 (2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    B., Chapman, W

    Kim, V. B., Chapman, W. H. H. I., Albrecht, R. J.et al.Early experience with telemanipulative robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy using da vinci. Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques12, 33 (2002)

    work page 2002

  61. [61]

    E., Bergamaschi, R

    Rojas, A., Gachabayov, M., Abouezzi, Z. E., Bergamaschi, R. & Latifi, R. Cur- rent robotic platforms in surgery and the road ahead.Surgical Technology International38, 39–46 (2021)

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    Burbano, J. C. R.et al.Robot-assisted surgery: Current applications and future trends in general surgery.Cureus17(2025)

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    B.et al.Robotic surgery in healthcare: current challenges, techno- logical advances, and global implementation prospects.Journal of robotic surgery 19, 577 (2025)

    Olawade, D. B.et al.Robotic surgery in healthcare: current challenges, techno- logical advances, and global implementation prospects.Journal of robotic surgery 19, 577 (2025). 34

    work page 2025