The simultaneous growth of robotic-assisted surgery and telemedicine in recent years has only been accelerated by the recent coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Robotic assistance for neurovascular intervention has garnered significant interest due to opportunities for tele-stroke models of care for remote underserved areas. Lessons learned from medical robots in interventional cardiology and neurosurgery have contributed to incremental but vital advances in medical robotics despite important limitations. In this article, we discuss robot types and their clinical justification and ethics, as well as a general overview on available robots in thoracic/abdominal surgery, neurosurgery, and cardiac electrophysiology. We conclude with current clinical research in neuroendovascular intervention and a perspective on future directions.
KooninLM.Trends in the use of telehealth during the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic—United States, January–March 2020.MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep2020; 69: 1595–1599.
2.
HollanderJECarrBG.Virtually perfect? Telemedicine for Covid-19. N Engl J Med2020; 382: 1679–1681.
3.
TabazaLVirkHUHJanzerS, et al. Robotic‐assisted percutaneous coronary intervention in a COVID‐19 patient. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2021; 97: E343–345.
4.
BhaskarSBradleySSakhamuriS, et al. Designing futuristic telemedicine using artificial intelligence and robotics in the COVID-19 era. Front Public Health2020; 8: 556789.
5.
MichtalikHJYehH-CPronovostPJ, et al. Impact of attending physician workload on patient care: a survey of hospitalists. JAMA Intern Med2013; 173: 375.
EladMEleidMFGulatiR, et al. Current and future use of robotic devices to perform percutaneous coronary interventions: a review. J Am Heart Assoc2017; 6: e006239.
8.
MuaddiHHafidMEChoiWJ, et al. Clinical outcomes of robotic surgery compared to conventional surgical approaches (laparoscopic or open): a systematic overview of reviews. Ann Surg2021; 273: 467–473.
9.
AvgoustiSChristoforouEGPanayidesAS, et al. Medical telerobotic systems: current status and future trends. Biomed Eng OnLine2016; 15: 96.
10.
LaneT.A short history of robotic surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl2018; 100: 5–7.
11.
FariaCErlhagenWRitoM, et al. Review of robotic technology for stereotactic neurosurgery. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng2015; 8: 125–137.
12.
FargenKMTurnerRD, andSpiottaAM.Factors that affect physiologic tremor and dexterity during surgery: a primer for neurosurgeons. World Neurosurg2016; 86: 384–389.
13.
WeiszGMetzgerDCCaputoRP, et al. Safety and feasibility of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention: PRECISE (Percutaneous Robotically-Enhanced Coronary Intervention) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol2013; 61 :1596–1600.
14.
Patel TejasMShah SanjayCSoni YashY, et al. Comparison of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention with traditional percutaneous coronary intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv2020; 13: e008888.
15.
PatelTMShahSC, andPancholySB.Long distance tele-robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of first-in-human experience. EClinicalMedicine2019; 14: 53–58.
CrewB.Worth the cost? A closer look at the da Vinci robot’s impact on prostate cancer surgery. Nature2020; 580: S5–S7.
19.
LeungTVyasD.Robotic surgery: applications. Am J Robot Surg2014; 1 :1–64.
20.
SamalaviciusNEJanusonisVSiaulysR, et al. Robotic surgery using Senhance® robotic platform: single center experience with first 100 cases. J Robot Surg2020; 14: 371–376.
21.
HocksteinNGGourinCGFaustRA, et al. A history of robots: from science fiction to surgical robotics. J Robot Surg2007; 1: 113–118.
22.
SmithJAJivrajJWongR, et al. 30 years of neurosurgical robots: review and trends for manipulators and associated navigational systems. Ann Biomed Eng2016; 44: 836–846.
23.
LiQHZamoranoLPandyaA, et al. The application accuracy of the NeuroMate robot—a quantitative comparison with frameless and frame-based surgical localization systems. Comput Aided Surg2002; 7: 90–98.
24.
LefrancMCapelCPruvot-OcceanA-S, et al. Frameless robotic stereotactic biopsies: a consecutive series of 100 cases. J Neurosurg2015; 122: 342–352.
25.
PaffMWangASPhielippN, et al. Two-year clinical outcomes associated with robotic-assisted subthalamic lead implantation in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Robot Surg2020; 14: 559–565.
26.
BernardoA.The changing face of technologically integrated neurosurgery: today’s high-tech operating room. World Neurosurg2017; 106: 1001–1014.
27.
GuoZLeongMC-WSuH, et al. Techniques for stereotactic neurosurgery: beyond the frame, toward the intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging–guided and robot-assisted approaches. World Neurosurg2018; 116: 77–87.
28.
D’SouzaMGendreauJFengA, et al. Robotic-assisted spine surgery: history, efficacy, cost, and future trends.Robot Surg Res Rev2019; 6: 9–23.
29.
PengY-NTsaiL-CHsuH-C, et al. Accuracy of robot-assisted versus conventional freehand pedicle screw placement in spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Transl Med2020; 8: 824–824.
30.
FatimaNMassaadEHadzipasicM, et al. Safety and accuracy of robot-assisted placement of pedicle screws compared to conventional free-hand technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J2021; 21: 181–192.
31.
YuanSHolmqvistFKongstadO, et al. Long-term outcomes of the current remote magnetic catheter navigation technique for ablation of atrial fibrillation. Scand Cardiovasc J2017; 51: 308–315.
32.
RolfSHindricksGSommerP, et al. Electroanatomical mapping of atrial fibrillation: review of the current techniques and advances. J Atr Fibrillation2014; 7: 1140.
ShaikhZEilenbergM, andCohenT.The Amigo™ remote catheter system: from concept to bedside. J Innov Card Rhythm Manag2017; 8: 2795–2802.
35.
GranadaJFDelgadoJAUribeMP, et al. First-in-human evaluation of a novel robotic-assisted coronary angioplasty system. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2011; 4: 460–465.
36.
SmitsonCCAngLPourdjabbarA, et al. Safety and feasibility of a novel, second-generation robotic-assisted system for percutaneous coronary intervention: first-in-human report. J Invasive Cardiol2018; 30: 152–156.
37.
MahmudENaghiJAngL, et al. Demonstration of the safety and feasibility of robotically assisted percutaneous coronary intervention in complex coronary lesions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2017; 10: 1320–1327.
38.
MahmudESchmidFKalmarP, et al. Feasibility and safety of robotic peripheral vascular interventions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2016; 9: 2058–2064.
39.
MadderRDVanoosterhoutSParkerJ, et al. Robotic telestenting performance in transcontinental and regional pre‐clinical models. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. Epub ahead of print 25 June 2020. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.29115.
40.
MadderRDVanoosterhoutSMulderA, et al. Network latency and long‐distance robotic telestenting: exploring the potential impact of network delays on telestenting performance. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv2020; 95: 914–919.
41.
BritzGWPanesarSSFalbP, et al. Neuroendovascular-specific engineering modifications to the CorPath GRX Robotic System. J Neurosurg2020; 133: 1830–1836.
42.
BritzGWTomasJ, andLumsdenA.Feasibility of robotic-assisted neurovascular interventions: initial experience in flow model and porcine model. Neurosurgery2020; 86: 309–314.
SajjaKCSweidAAl SaieghF, et al. Endovascular robotic: feasibility and proof of principle for diagnostic cerebral angiography and carotid artery stenting. J NeuroInterventional Surg2020; 12: 345–349.
45.
NogueiraRGSachdevaRAl-BayatiAR, et al. Robotic assisted carotid artery stenting for the treatment of symptomatic carotid disease: technical feasibility and preliminary results. J NeuroInterventional Surg2020; 12: 341–344.
GeorgeEIBrandTCLaPortaA, et al. Origins of robotic surgery: from skepticism to standard of care. JSLS2018; 22: e2018.00039.
48.
CheninLPeltierJ, andLefrancM.Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with the ROSATM Spine robot and intraoperative flat-panel CT guidance. Acta Neurochir2016; 158: 1125–1128.
49.
D’SouzaMGendreauJFengA, et al. Robotic-assisted spine surgery: history, efficacy, cost, and future trends.Robot Surg Res Rev2019; 6: 9–23.
50.
KhanAMeyersJESiasiosI, et al. Next-generation robotic spine surgery: first report on feasibility, safety, and learning curve. Oper Neurosurg2019; 17: 61–69.
51.
SutherlandGRLatourI, andGreerAD.Integrating an image-guided robot with intraoperative MRI. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag2008; 27: 59–65.
52.
SloanAEAhluwaliaMSValerio-PascuaJ, et al. Results of the NeuroBlate system first-in-humans Phase I clinical trial for recurrent glioblastoma: clinical article. J Neurosurg2013; 118: 1202–1219.
53.
VardimanABWallaceDJCrawfordNR, et al. Pedicle screw accuracy in clinical utilization of minimally invasive navigated robot-assisted spine surgery. J Robot Surg2020; 14: 409–413.
54.
PatelTMShahSCSoniYY, et al. Comparison of robotic percutaneous coronary intervention with traditional percutaneous coronary intervention: a propensity score–matched analysis of a large cohort. Circ Cardiovasc Interv2020; 13: e008888.
55.
BismuthJDuranCStankovicM, et al. A first-in-man study of the role of flexible robotics in overcoming navigation challenges in the iliofemoral arteries. J Vasc Surg2013; 57: 14S–19S.
56.
CochennecFKobeiterHGohelM, et al. Feasibility and safety of renal and visceral target vessel cannulation using robotically steerable catheters during complex endovascular aortic procedures. J Endovasc Ther2015; 22: 187–193.
57.
SalibaWReddyVYWazniO, et al. Atrial fibrillation ablation using a robotic catheter remote control system: initial human experience and long-term follow-up results. J Am Coll Cardiol2008; 51: 2407–2411.
58.
Dello RussoAFassiniGContiS, et al. Analysis of catheter contact force during atrial fibrillation ablation using the robotic navigation system: results from a randomized study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol2016; 46: 97–103.
59.
KhanEMFrumkinWNgGA, et al. First experience with a novel robotic remote catheter system: Amigo™ mapping trial. J Interv Card Electrophysiol2013; 37: 121–129.
60.
DatinoTArenalAPellizaM, et al. Comparison of the safety and feasibility of arrhythmia ablation using the Amigo robotic remote catheter system versus manual ablation. Am J Cardiol2014; 113: 827–831.
61.
HoffmayerKSKrainskiFShahS, et al. Randomized controlled trial of Amigo® robotically controlled versus manually controlled ablation of the cavo-tricuspid isthmus using a contact force ablation catheter. J Interv Card Electrophysiol2018; 51: 125–132.
62.
TuragamMKAtkinsDTungR, et al. A meta-analysis of manual versus remote magnetic navigation for ventricular tachycardia ablation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol2017; 49: 227–235.
63.
SalimiARamezanifarAMohammadpourJ, et al. ROBOCATH: a patient-mounted parallel robot to position and orient surgical catheters. ASME 2012 5th Annual Dynamic Systems and Control Conference joint with the JSME 2012 11th Motion and Vibration Conference, October 17–19, 2012, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
