Advancements in Medical Robotics: Enhancing Precision in Surgical Procedures

Article Sidebar

Full Text PDF
Published: 2026-05-07
DOI: https://doi.org/10.61919/dfyf2h17
Keywords:
Medical robotics; robotic surgery; surgical precision; minimally invasive surgery; engineering development research; force control; artificial tissue model; robotic-assisted procedures; Lahore; Pakistan.

Main Article Content

Dr. Mahnoor Asad
MBBS, Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. ORCID: 0009-0007-0606-2594
Muzafar Ali s/o Muharam Ali
MBBS, Liaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Pakistan ORCID: 0009-0006-8438-6191
Dr. Masoom Ali Shah
Assistant Professor, Pediatric Surgery Department, People University of Medical Health Sciences for Women, Nawab Shah, Pakistan
Dr. Sirajuddin Soomro
FCPS Paediatric Surgery, Professor of Paediatric Surgery, Chandka Medical College of SMBB Medical University, Larkana, Pakistan. ORCID: 0000-0001-9056-6574
Muhammad Zakria
Lecturer, Department of Physics, University of Balochistan, Quetta, Pakistan
Kainat Rizwan
The Millennium Universal College, Faisalabad, Pakistan ORCID: 0009-0009-5796-3928

Abstract

Background: Medical robotics has become an important precision-enhancing technology in modern surgery by reducing limitations related to hand tremor, fatigue, restricted visualization, and constrained instrument movement. However, engineering-performance evidence from simulated surgical environments remains limited in developing healthcare settings. Objective: To evaluate the precision, repeatability, task efficiency, force control, and error profile of a robotic surgical platform during standardized simulated surgical tasks. Methods: This experimental engineering-development study was conducted in a controlled laboratory setting at a tertiary care center in Lahore, Pakistan. A multi-arm robotic surgical platform with three-dimensional visualization, motion tracking, and force-sensing support was tested using artificial tissue models. Ten trained operators performed five repetitions each of precision cutting, object manipulation, suturing in confined spaces, and target alignment. Outcomes included mean positional error, task completion time, applied force, precision consistency, error rate, and observational usability findings. Results: Mean positional error ranged from 0.5 mm in target alignment to 1.1 mm in object manipulation. Target alignment showed the best combined performance, with the lowest mean error, shortest completion time of 90 seconds, and lowest error rate of 2%. Object manipulation showed the highest error burden at 5%, while suturing required the longest completion time at 180 seconds. Force application remained controlled, and operators demonstrated smoother movement, tremor reduction, improved visualization, and reduced fatigue across trials. Conclusion: The robotic platform demonstrated high precision, low error rates, controlled force delivery, and reliable repeatability in simulated surgical tasks. Further studies using larger datasets, manual-control comparisons, inferential analysis, and clinical validation are required.

Article Details

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 9 (2026): Volume 4, Issue 9 (May 2026)

Section

Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

1.
Dr. Mahnoor Asad, Muzafar Ali s/o Muharam Ali, Dr. Masoom Ali Shah, Dr. Sirajuddin Soomro, Muhammad Zakria, Kainat Rizwan. Advancements in Medical Robotics: Enhancing Precision in Surgical Procedures. JHWCR [Internet]. 2026 May 7 [cited 2026 May 7];4(9):1-10. Available from: https://jhwcr.com/index.php/jhwcr/article/view/1515

References

1. Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC. Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg. 2004;239(1):14-21. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000133180.51044.2a.

2. Kranzfelder M, Staub C, Fiolka A, Schneider A, Gillen S, Wilhelm D, et al. Robotic surgery: advantages and disadvantages. J Surg Oncol. 2013. doi:10.1002/jso.23356.

3. Dupont PE, Nelson BJ, Goldfarb M, Hannaford B, Menciassi A, O’Malley MK, et al. Robotic tools for minimally invasive surgery. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2009. doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-061008-124935.

4. Shademan A, Decker RS, Opfermann JD, Leonard S, Krieger A, Kim PCW. Supervised autonomous robotic soft tissue surgery. Sci Transl Med. 2016. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aad9398.

5. Hashimoto DA, Rosman G, Rus D, Meireles OR. Artificial intelligence in surgery. Ann Surg. 2018. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000002693.

6. Yang GZ, Cambias J, Cleary K, Daimler E, Drake J, Dupont PE, et al. Medical robotics—regulatory, ethical, and technical challenges. Sci Robot. 2017;2(4):eaam8638. doi:10.1126/scirobotics.aam8638.

7. Dagnino G, Georgilas I, Morad S, Gibbons P, Tarassoli SP, Atkins R, et al. Soft robotics for minimally invasive surgery. Nat Rev Mater. 2020. doi:10.1038/s41578-020-00226-9.

8. Peters BS, Armijo PR, Krause C, Choudhury SA, Oleynikov D. Review of emerging surgical robotic technology. Surg Endosc. 2018. doi:10.1007/s00464-018-6085-2.

9. Ng JKW. Revolutionizing surgery: AI and robotics for precision, risk reduction, and innovation. J Robot Surg. 2025. doi:10.1007/s11701-024-02205-0.

10. Biswas P, Sikander S, Kulkarni P. Recent advances in robot-assisted surgical systems. Biomed Eng Adv. 2023. doi:10.1016/j.bea.2023.100109.

11. Cepolina F. An introductory review of robotically assisted surgical systems. Int J Med Robot. 2022. doi:10.1002/rcs.2409.

12. Taylor RH, Menciassi A, Fichtinger G, Dario P. Medical robotics and computer-integrated surgery. In: Springer Handbook of Robotics. Cham: Springer; 2016. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32552-1_59.

13. Simaan N, Yasin RM, Wang L. Medical technologies and challenges of robot-assisted minimally invasive intervention. arXiv. 2018. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1807.03731.

14. Pisla D, et al. Accuracy and repeatability of a parallel robot for minimally invasive surgery. arXiv. 2024. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.11140.

15. Ciuti G, Webster RJ, Kwok KW, Menciassi A. Robotic surgery. Nat Rev Bioeng. 2025. doi:10.1038/s44222-025-00294-6.