Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) robots and instruments utilize natural body cavities to access the abdomen, mediastinum, or thorax for various operations. This approach offers significant advantages, such as reduced pain, no scarring, minimal trauma, and faster recovery. With advancements in robotic technology, these robots have become an essential complement to traditional surgical methods. A new classification of these devices has been proposed through a literature review, focusing on their structural features and diverse applications. The performance of these robots is examined from the perspectives of their structural characteristics and action execution methods. Key challenges are identified, and future directions for development are discussed, particularly in terms of enhancing precision and expanding the use of these robots in specialties such as cardiac surgery, gynecology, and urology. The review highlights the need for improvements in visual systems, tactile feedback, and materials to enhance the overall surgical performance and versatility of these systems.
TaylorCLSchwarzRJ.The anatomy and mechanics of the human hand. Artif Limbs1955; 2(2): 22–35.
2.
ChimH.Hand and wrist anatomy and biomechanics: a comprehensive guide. Plast Reconstr Surg2017; 140(4): 865.
3.
WadyHDocimoSJr.Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES). In:MKrohS JrDocimoJrDjouzi SEl, et al. (eds.) The SAGES manual operating through the endoscope. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023, pp.909–992.
4.
WilkPJ.Method for use in intra-abdominal surgery. Patent 5,458,131. USA1995.
5.
AbbottDJBeckeCRothsteinRI, et al. Design of an endoluminal NOTES robotic system. Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) 2007, San Diego, CA, USA, 2007, pp.410–416. New York: IEEE.
6.
DuHLiuXSunH, et al. Progress in control-actuation robotic system for gastrointestinal NOTES development. Biomed Res Int2022; 2022(1): 704748.
7.
CapozziVAArmanoGRosatiA, et al. The robotic single-port platform for gynecologic surgery: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Updates Surg2021; 73: 1155–1167.
8.
LowSCPheeSJTangSW, et al. Master-slave robotic system for therapeutic gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. In:WickramasingheNGeislerE (eds.) Encyclopedia of healthcare information systems. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2008, pp.860–865.
9.
DagninoGKundratD.Robot-assistive minimally invasive surgery: trends and future directions. Int J Intell Robot Appl2024; 8(4): 1–15.
10.
XieSWoodTCDasguptaP, et al. Robot assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynaecology: an evolving assistive technology. Surg Innov2024; 31(3): 324–330.
11.
AlkatoutIO’SullivanOPetersG, et al. Expanding robotic-assisted surgery in gynecology using the potential of an advanced robotic system. Medicina2023; 60(1): 53.
12.
LiuYSunLChenK, et al. Robot-assisted transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for a 32-year-old patient with early-stage endometrial carcinoma: a case report (with video). Intell Surg2022; 5: 16–19.
13.
YoongWSampsonVMwenechanyaL, et al. VNOTES (vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery): is this the future of gynaecological surgery?. Obstet Gynaecol2023; 25(2): 97–100.
14.
WilliamsonTSongSE.Robotic surgery techniques to improve traditional laparoscopy. JSLS2022; 26(2): 52–64.
15.
HaberGPCrouzetSKamoiK, et al. Robotic NOTES (Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery) in reconstructive urology: initial laboratory experience. Urology2008; 71(6): 996–1000.
16.
EscobarPFFaderANParaisoMF, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynecology: initial report and technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol2009; 16(5): 589–591.
17.
KooYJ.Recent advances in minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic indications. Yeungnam Univ J Med2018; 35(2): 150–155.
18.
MereuLGaiaGAfoninaM, et al. “Less is more, is R-LESS more?”—the use of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in gynaecology: a scoping review. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol2023; 50(1): 19.
19.
SunHGaoJJinZ, et al. Robotic single-site surgery versus laparoendoscopic single-site surgery in early-stage endometrial cancer: a case-control study. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne2021: 16: 597–603.
20.
LiuYXiongJChenY, et al. Advances in the application of robotic single-site laparoscopy in gynecology. Intell Surg2022; 4: 12–17.
21.
MassimelloFCelaV.Role of single port robotic surgery in gynecology. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol2024; 95: 102497.
22.
KaneSSteppKJ.Laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery hysterectomy using robotic lightweight endoscope assistants. J Robot Surg2010; 3: 253–255.
23.
CorcoranCJBushSH.History and utility of single port laparoscopy, robotic assisted laparoscopy, and vaginal laparoscopy (vNOTES) in gynecologic surgery. In:GMarchand. Single port gynecologic laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery. London, UK: Intech Open, 2021, p.33.
24.
SubbaKLambertEEl-GhobashyA.Tips and tricks in gynaecological robotic surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol2023; 93: 102453.
25.
AutorinoRBednarzCReevesF, et al. The evolution of robotic single-port dedicated platforms. In:BertoloRKaoukJ (eds.) Single-port robotic surgery in urology. Boston, MA and London, UK: Academic Press, 2022, pp.1–10.
26.
BishoffJTKavoussiLR.Atlas of laparoscopic and robotic urologic surgery. New York, NY: Elsevier Health Sciences, 2022.
27.
LeeCLHuangCYWuKY, et al. Natural orifice transvaginal endoscopic surgery myomectomy: an innovative approach to myomectomy. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther2014; 3(4): 127–130.
28.
TekinABYassaMKayaC, et al. Implementing the transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) “first” strategy in benign gynecological surgeries. Arch Gynecol Obstet2023; 307(4): 1007–1013.
29.
KarakasSKayaCYildizS, et al. Comparison of vNOTES technique with conventional laparoscopy in gynecological emergency cases. Minim Invasive Ther2022; 31(5): 803–809.
30.
HarveyMForanP.Procedural considerations of hysterectomy by vNOTES (vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery): a literature review. J Perioper Nurs2023; 36(3): e24–e35.
31.
KayaCYildizSAlayI, et al. The comparison of surgical outcomes following laparoscopic hysterectomy and vNOTES hysterectomy in obese patients. J Invest Surg2022; 35(4): 862–867.
32.
ÖzelB.Vaginal hysterectomy: indications, avoiding complications. In: Handbook of gynecology. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023, pp.833–847.
33.
HigginsCMcdonaldRMolBW.Indications and surgical route for hysterectomy for benign disorders: a retrospective analysis in a large Australian tertiary hospital network. Arch Gynecol Obstet2022; 306(6): 2027–2033.
34.
MerlierMCollinetPPieracheA, et al. Is V-NOTES hysterectomy as safe and feasible as outpatient surgery compared with vaginal hysterectomy?. J Minim Invasive Gynecol2022; 29(5): 665–672.
35.
Le TohicADhainautCYazbeckC, et al. Hysterectomy for benign uterine pathology among women without previous vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol2008; 111(4): 829–837.
36.
de TayracRCossonM. Vaginal hysterectomy and pelvic organ prolapse: history and recent developments. Int Urogynecol J2024; 32: 1–11.
37.
MorganDMKamdarNSSwensonCW, et al. Nationwide trends in the utilization of and payments for hysterectomy in the United States among commercially insured women. Am J Obstet Gynecol2018; 218(4): 425.e1–425.e18.
38.
LowensteinLMatanesEWeinerZ, et al. Robotic transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for bilateral salpingo oophorectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X2020; 7: 100113.
39.
WangYLiuKGongZ, et al. Gasless vNOTES vs traditional vNOTES for benign gynecological disease: a randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC Anesthesiol2024; 25(1): 159.
40.
JalladKWaltersMD.Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) in gynecology. Clin Obstet Gynecol2017; 60(2): 324–329.
41.
BaekelandtJ.Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: a new approach to ovarian cystectomy. Fertil Steril2018; 109(2): 366.
LernerVTMayGIglesiaCB. Vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery revolution: the next frontier in gynecologic minimally invasive surgery. JSLS2023; 27(1): e2022.00082.
44.
FengDLiuTLiX, et al. Study protocol protocol for the Chengdu longitudinal cohort study on vNOTES in treating benign gynecologic indications (the CLOCKBEGIN study): a randomized controlled trial, Res Sq [preprint]. 2024: rs.3.rs-4153590/v1. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4153590/v1.
45.
LeeCLLiuHMKhanS, et al. Vaginal natural orifice transvaginal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) surgical staging for endometrial carcinoma: the feasibility of an innovative approach. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol2022; 61(2): 345–352.
46.
MarchandGMasoudATUlibarriH, et al. Systematic review and meta analysis of vNOTES versus laparoscopic hysterectomy. AJOG Glob Rep2024; 2024: 100320.
XuPZhaoZTianY, et al. A retrospective analysis of robot-assisted total hysterectomy by transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Heliyon2023; 9(9): e19207.
49.
LeeCLWuKYSuH, et al. Robot-assisted natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for hysterectomy. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol2015; 54(6): 761–765.
50.
LiangJJiangYAbboudY, et al. Role of endoscopy in management of upper gastrointestinal cancers. Diseases2022; 11(1): 3.
51.
MarliczWRenXRobertsonA, et al. Frontiers of robotic gastroscopy: a comprehensive review of robotic gastroscopes and technologies. Cancers2020; 12(10): 2775.
52.
KumeK.Flexible robotic endoscopy: current and original devices. Comput Assist Surg2016; 21(1): 150–159.
53.
ChiuPWYHoKYPheeSJ.Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection using a novel robotic system (with video). Gastrointest Endosc2021; 93(5): 1172–1177.
54.
SeahTETDoTNTakeshitaN, et al. Flexible robotic endoscopy systems and the future ahead. In:SridharSWuGY (eds). Diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in gastroenterology: an illustrated guide, Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 2018, pp.521–536.
55.
ZhaoJZhengXZhengM, et al. An endoscopic continuum testbed for finalizing system characteristics of a surgical robot for NOTES procedures. IEEE ASME Int Conf Adv Intell Mechatron2013; 42: 63–70.
56.
ZornLNageotteFZanneP, et al. A novel telemanipulated robotic assistant for surgical endoscopy: preclinical application to ESD. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2017; 65(4): 797–808.
57.
PheeSJLowSCSunZL, et al. Robotic system for no-scar gastrointestinal surgery. Int J Med Robot2008; 4(1): 15–22.
58.
PheeSJReddyNChiuPWY, et al. Robot-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection is effective in treating patients with early-stage gastric neoplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol2012; 10(10): 1117–1121.
59.
PatelNDarziATeareJ.The endoscopy evolution: “the superscope era”. Frontline Gastroenterol2015; 6(2): 101–107.
60.
FuchsKHBreithauptW.Transgastric small bowel resection with the new multitasking platform EndoSAMURAI for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc2012; 26: 2281–2287.
61.
KamelIS.The role of robotics and automation in surgery: critical review of current and emerging technologies. FEM2023; 2(1): 23.
62.
RemacleMMN PrasadVLawsonG, et al. Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) with the Medrobotics Flex System: first surgical application on humans. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol2015; 272: 1451–1455.
63.
de MouraDTHAiharaHJirapinyoP, et al. Robot-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection versus conventional ESD for colorectal lesions: outcomes of a randomized pilot study in endoscopists without prior ESD experience (with video). Gastrointest Endosc2019; 90(2): 290–298.
64.
AtallahSHodgesALarachSW.Direct target NOTES: prospective applications for next generation robotic platforms. Tech Coloproctol2018; 22: 363–371.
65.
BernthJEArezzoALiuH.A novel robotic meshworm with segment-bending anchoring for colonoscopy. IEEE Robot Autom Lett2017; 2(3): 1718–1724.
66.
SivananthanAGloverBAyaruL, et al. The evolution of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: where are we now?. Ther Adv Gastrointest Endosc2020; 13: 2631774520979591.
67.
YeungCKCheungJLKSreedharB.Emerging next-generation robotic colonoscopy systems towards painless colonoscopy. J Digest Dis2019; 20(4): 196–205.
68.
ViscontiTACOtochJPArtifonELA.Robotic endoscopy. A review of the literature. Acta Cir Bras2020; 35: e202000206.
69.
KimSHChoiHSKeumB, et al. Robotics in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Appl Sci2021; 11(23): 11351.
70.
AhmedJFFrancoEBaenaFRY, et al. A review of bioinspired locomotion in lower GI endoscopy. Robotica2024; 42(12): 1–11.
71.
LehmanACDumpertJWoodNA, et al. Natural orifice cholecystectomy using a miniature robot. Surg Endosc2009; 23: 260–266.
72.
LeongFGarbinNDi NataliC, et al. Magnetic surgical instruments for robotic abdominal surgery. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng2016; 9: 66–78.
73.
HaradaKSusiloEMenciassiA, et al. Wireless reconfigurable modules for robotic endoluminal surgery. Proc IEEE Int Conf Robot Autom2009; 36: 2699–2704.
74.
ZuoSWangS.Current and emerging robotic assisted intervention for Notes. Expert Rev Med Devices2016; 13(12): 1095–1105.
75.
TortoraGSalernoMRanzaniT, et al. A modular magnetic platform for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc2013; 2013: 6265–6268.
76.
TortoraGDimitracopoulosAValdastriP, et al. Design of miniature modular in vivo robots for dedicated tasks in minimally invasive surgery. IEEE ASME Int Conf Adv Intell Mechatron2011; 26: 327–332.
77.
NguyenCCWongSThaiMT, et al. Advanced user interfaces for teleoperated surgical robotic systems. Adv Sensor Res2023; 2(4): 2200036.
78.
KaanHLHoKY.Clinical adoption of robotics in endoscopy: challenges and solutions. JGH Open2020; 4(5): 790–794.
79.
CaoLLiXPhanPT, et al. Sewing up the wounds: a robotic suturing system for flexible endoscopy. IEEE Robot Autom Mag2020; 27(3): 45–54.
80.
HwangMKwonDS.K-FLEX: a flexible robotic platform for scar-free endoscopic surgery. Int J Med Robot2020; 16(2): e2078.
81.
WangXTongX.Vascular reconstruction related to the extracranial vertebral artery: the presentation of the concept and the basis for the establishment of the bypass system. Front Neurol2023; 14: 1202257.
82.
OertelJDegiannisJ.Robotics in transoral approaches of the skull base. In: MMAl-SalihiAAyyadRSTubbs, et al. (eds.) Robotics in skull-base surgery. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023, pp.11–17.
83.
KimYChengSSDiakiteM, et al. Toward the development of a flexible mesoscale MRI-compatible neurosurgical continuum robot. IEEE Trans Robot2017; 33(6): 1386–1397.
84.
GifariMWNaghibiHStramigioliS, et al. A review on recent advances in soft surgical robots for endoscopic applications. Int J Med Robot2019; 15(5): e2010.
85.
MadoglioARocaETampaliniF, et al. Robotics in neuroendoscopy. In:Al-SalihiMMTubbsRSAyyadA, et al. (eds.) Introduction to robotics in minimally invasive neurosurgery. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp.39–55.
86.
SwaneyPJGilbertHBWebsterRJ III, et al. Endonasal skull base tumor removal using concentric tube continuum robots: a phantom study. J Neurol Surg B2015; 76(2): 145–149.
87.
KristinJGeigerRKrausP, et al. Assessment of the endoscopic range of motion for head and neck surgery using the SOLOASSIST endoscope holder. Int J Med Robot2015; 11(4): 418–423.
88.
PangalDJCoteDJRuzevickJ, et al. Robotic and robot-assisted skull base neurosurgery: systematic review of current applications and future directions. Neurosurg Focus2022; 52(1): E15.
89.
XiongYLiuYXinG, et al. Exploration of the causes of cerebrospinal fluid leakage after endoscopic endonasal surgery for sellar and suprasellar lesions and analysis of risk factors. Front Surg2022; 9: 981669.
90.
CouckeBVan GervenLDe VleeschouwerS, et al. The incidence of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leakage after elective cranial surgery: a systematic review. Neurosurg Rev2022; 45(3): 1827–1845.
91.
BlyRASuDLendvayTS, et al. Multiportal robotic access to the anterior cranial fossa: a surgical and engineering feasibility study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2013; 149(6): 940–946.
92.
DallapiazzaRFGroberYStarkeRM, et al. Long-term results of endonasal endoscopic transsphenoidal resection of nonfunctioning pituitary macroadenomas. Neurosurgery2015; 76(1): 42–53.
93.
ZhuHLiCGuiS, et al. Experience of endoscopic endonasal approach for 803 pituitary tumors with cavernous sinus invasion. J Craniofac Surg2022; 33(2): e118–e122.
94.
QuiliciPJWolbergHMcConnellN.Operating costs, fiscal impact, value analysis and guidance for the routine use of robotic technology in abdominal surgical procedures. Surg Endosc2022; 36(2): 1433–1443.
95.
AlshowaikhKKarpinska-LeydierKAmirthalingamJ, et al. Surgical and patient outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a systematic review. Cureus2021; 13(8): e16828.
96.
ChauvetDMissistranoAHivelinM, et al. Transoral robotic-assisted skull base surgery to approach the sella turcica: cadaveric study. Neurosurg Rev2014; 37: 609–617.
97.
Fernandez-NoguerasFJJKatatiMJArraez SanchezMA, et al. Transoral robotic surgery of the central skull base: preclinical investigations. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol2014; 271: 1759–1763.
98.
KupfermanMEDeMonteFLevineN, et al. Feasibility of a robotic surgical approach to reconstruct the skull base. Skull Base2011; 21(2): 79–82.
99.
KupfermanMDeMonteFHolsingerFC, et al. Transantral robotic access to the pituitary gland. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg2009; 141(3): 413–415.
HongWCTsaiJCChangSD, et al. Robotic skull base surgery via supraorbital keyhole approach: a cadaveric study. Neurosurgery2013; 72: A33–A38.
102.
DallanICastelnuovoPSecciaV, et al. Combined transnasal transcervical robotic dissection of posterior skull base: feasibility in a cadaveric model. Rhinology2012; 50(2): 165–170.
103.
PavoneMLecointreLSeeligerB, et al. The vaginal route for minimally invasive surgery: a practical guide for general surgeons. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol2024; 34(1): 78–87.
104.
ManivasagamSSChoudharySManochaP, et al. Insights into laparoscopic port site complications: a comprehensive review. Cureus2024; 16(6): e63431.
105.
Riccardo AutorinoMDKhalifehAKaoukJH.Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES): recent advances in urology. Int J Clin Rev2012; 18(1): 1.
106.
RolandaCLimaEPêgoJM, et al. Third-generation cholecystectomy by natural orifices: transgastric and transvesical combined approach (with video). Gastrointest Endosc2007; 65(1): 111–117.
107.
BoxGNBesslerMClaymanRV.Transvaginal access: current experience and potential implications for urologic applications. J Endourol2009; 23(5): 753–757.
108.
ZhangWLiHCuiL, et al. Research progress and development trend of surgical robot and surgical instrument arm. Int J Med Robot2021; 17(5): e2309.
MiakichevaOHamiltonZBeksacAT, et al. Gastrointestinal tract access for urological natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. World J Gastrointest Endosc2016; 8(19): 684.
111.
BazziWMWagnerOStroupSP, et al. Transrectal hybrid Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) nephrectomy in a porcine model. Urology2011; 77(3): 518–523.
112.
Rivero-MorenoYEchevarriaSVidal-ValderramaC, et al. Robotic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature and current trends. Cureus2023; 15(7): e42370.
113.
AminsharifiABertoloRHugeC, et al.Future perspectives: natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. In:BertoloRKaoukJ (eds.) Single-port robotic surgery in urology. Boston, MA and London, UK: Academic Press, 2022, pp.155–170.
114.
KaoukJHKhalifehALaydnerH, et al. Transvaginal hybrid natural orifice transluminal surgery robotic donor nephrectomy: first clinical application. Urology2012; 80(6): 1171–1175.
115.
EyraudRLaydnerHAutorinoR, et al. Robot-assisted transrectal hybrid natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery nephrectomy and adrenalectomy: initial investigation in a cadaver model. Urology2013; 81(5): 1090–1094.
116.
DomkaWBartusik-AebisherDMytychW, et al. Photodynamic therapy for eye, ear, laryngeal area, and nasal and oral cavity diseases: a review. Cancers2024; 16(3): 645.
117.
De VirgilioACostantinoARizzoD, et al. Do we have enough evidence to specifically recommend transoral robotic surgery in HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer? A systematic review. Pathogens2023; 12(2): 160.
118.
ZorziSFAgostiniGChuF, et al. Upfront transoral robotic surgery (TORS) versus intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer: real-world data from a tertiary comprehensive cancer centre. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital2022; 42(4): 334.
119.
KhanAHunasikattiM.Advances in the surgical treatments for snoring and obstructive sleep apnea. In:ASBaHammamMHunasikatti (eds.) Sleep apnea frontiers: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment strategies. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2024, pp.181–199.
120.
CambiJChiriZMDe SantisS, et al. Outcomes in single-stage multilevel surgery for obstructive sleep apnea: transoral robotic surgery, expansion sphincter pharyngoplasty and septoplasty. Int J Med Robot2019; 15(6): e2034.
121.
TurhanMBostanciA.Robotic tongue-base resection combined with tongue-base suspension for obstructive sleep apnea. Laryngoscope2020; 130(9): 2285–2291.
122.
DuttaSRPassiDSharmaS, et al. Transoral robotic surgery: a contemporary cure for future maxillofacial surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Med Pathol2016; 28(4): 290–303.
123.
PoonHLiCGaoW, et al. Evolution of robotic systems for transoral head and neck surgery. Oral Oncol2018; 87: 82–88.
124.
TirelliGNataFBPiovesanaM, et al. Transoral surgery (TOS) in oropharyngeal cancer: different tools, a single mini-invasive philosophy. Surg Oncol2018; 27(4): 643–649.
125.
TamakiARoccoJWOzerE.The future of robotic surgery in otolaryngology—head and neck surgery. Oral Oncol2020; 101: 104510.
126.
ChanJYKTsangRKHolsingerFC, et al. Prospective clinical trial to evaluate safety and feasibility of using a single port flexible robotic system for transoral head and neck surgery. Oral Oncol2019; 94: 101–105.
127.
LangSMattheisSHasskampP, et al. A European multicenter study evaluating the flex robotic system in transoral robotic surgery. Laryngoscope2017; 127(2): 391–395.
128.
ShengBTWWongPHoonCTE.Transoral robotic excision of laryngeal papillomas with Flex® Robotic System—a novel surgical approach. Am J Otolaryngol2018; 39(3): 355–358.
129.
PerskyMJIssaMBonfiliJR, et al. Transoral surgery using the flex robotic system: initial experience in the United States. Head Neck2018; 40(11): 2482–2486.
130.
SethiNGouzosMPadhyeV, et al. Transoral robotic surgery using the Medrobotic Flex system: the Adelaide experience. J Robot Surg2020; 14: 109–113.
131.
GuptaKKKhanHMughalZ, et al. Primary tumour detection in carcinoma of unknown primary with transoral robotic surgery (TORS) tongue base mucosectomy: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol2024; 31(9): 6065–6076.
132.
OliverJRPerskyMJWangB, et al. Transoral robotic surgery adoption and safety in treatment of oropharyngeal cancers. Cancer2022; 128(4): 685–696.
133.
KlodmannJSchlenkCHellings-KußA, et al. An introduction to robotically assisted surgical systems: current developments and focus areas of research. Curr Robot Rep2021; 2(3): 321–332.
134.
WalvekarRRPetersGHardyE, et al. Robotic-assisted transoral removal of a bilateral floor of mouth ranulas. World J Surg Oncol2011; 9: 1–4.
135.
CapaccioPMontevecchiFMeccarielloG, et al. Transoral robotic surgery for hilo-parenchymal submandibular stones: step-by-step description and reasoned approach. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2019; 48(12): 1520–1524.
136.
RazaviCPaschelesCSamaraG, et al. Robo-assisted sialolithotomy with sialendoscopy for the management of large submandibular gland stones. Laryngoscope2016; 126(2): 345–351.
137.
BonawitzSCDuvvuriU.Robotic-assisted FAMM flap for soft palate reconstructionLaryngoscope2013; 123(4): 870–874.
138.
TsaiYCLiuSALaiCS, et al. Functional outcomes and complications of robot-assisted free flap oropharyngeal reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg2017; 78(3): S76–S82.
139.
GorphePTemamSKolbF, et al. Cervical-transoral robotic oropharyngectomy and thin anterolateral thigh free flap. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis2018; 135(1): 71–74.
140.
TurnerMTGeltzeilerMAlbergottiWG, et al. Reconstruction of TORS oropharyngectomy defects with the nasoseptal flap via transpalatal tunnel. J Robot Surg2020; 14: 311–316.
141.
DohlerMSaikaliSGamalA, et al. The crucial role of 5G, 6G, and fiber in robotic telesurgery. J Robot Surg2025; 19(1): 1–12.
142.
SeetohulJShafieeMSirlantzisK.Augmented reality (AR) for surgical robotic and autonomous systems: state of the art, challenges, and solutions. Sensors2023; 23(13): 6202.
143.
JinLZhaiXXueW, et al. Finite element analysis, machine learning, and digital twins for soft robots: state-of-arts and perspectives. Smart Mater Struct2025; 34(3): 45–62.
144.
CiutiGWebsterRJIIIKwokKW, et al. Robotic surgery. Nat Rev Bioeng2025; 22: 1–14.
145.
MuscoloGGFioriniP.Force–torque sensors for minimally invasive surgery robotic tools: an overview. IEEE Trans Med Robot Bionics2023; 5(3): 458–471.
146.
ColanJDavilaAHasegawaY.Tactile feedback in robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery: a systematic review. Int J Med Robot2024; 20(6): e70019.
147.
LinghuE.A new stage of surgical treatment: super minimally invasive surgery. Chin Med J2022; 135(1): 1–3.
148.
PoreALiZDall’AlbaD, et al. Autonomous navigation for robot-assisted intraluminal and endovascular procedures: a systematic review. IEEE Trans Robot2023; 39(4): 2529–2548.
149.
SelimMDresscherDAbayazidM.A comprehensive review of haptic feedback in minimally invasive robotic liver surgery: advancements and challenges. Int J Med Robot2024; 20(1): e2605.
