Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

LapSurgie: Humanoid Robots Performing Surgery via Teleoperated Handheld Laparoscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A humanoid robot teleoperated via a da Vinci console can grasp off-the-shelf wristed laparoscopic tools and perform a peg-transfer task with accuracy matching the dVRK, but slower.

desk verdict A genuinely new humanoid-laparoscopy integration with a solid engineering story, but the headline accuracy claim overstates what the statistics support. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.03529 v3 pith:V7WIIVJ2 submitted 2025-10-03 cs.RO

Zekai Liang , Xiao Liang , Soofiyan Atar , Sreyan Das , Zoe Chiu , Peihan Zhang , Calvin Joyce , Florian Richter
show 2 more authors
Shanglei Liu Michael C. Yip
This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords laparoscopichumanoidremoteroboticsurgicalcontrolframeworklapsurgie
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Laparoscopic surgery uses long thin tools through small holes. The tools pivot at the hole, so the robot must obey a remote-center-of-motion (RCM) constraint. LapSurgie is a teleoperation setup where a surgeon at a da Vinci console moves handles, and a G1 humanoid robot holds commercially available wristed laparoscopic tools. The paper's key engineering contribution is an inverse-mapping controller: it models the passive wrist mechanism of the tool, solves for the robot-hand pose that puts the tool tip where the surgeon wants, and adds the RCM constraint so the tool doesn't lever against the keyhole.

The authors built a mount to let the humanoid hold the tools, and stereo vision on the instrument gives the surgeon a 3D view. They evaluated the system with 14 participants (12 novices, 2 surgeons) on a ring-transfer task, comparing the humanoid against the dVRK surgical robot and manual laparoscopy. Average errors were similar between the humanoid and dVRK, but the humanoid took about twice as long. The surgeons scored the humanoid's mental and physical demand lower than manual laparoscopy.

The main caveats: the conclusion says the humanoid 'significantly outperforms' manual operation, but the p-values in Table II do not support that. A key kinematic relation, θ3 = 2θ1, is stated as a gearing ratio without independent calibration, and the raw trial data and code are not provided. The central feasibility claim — that a general-purpose humanoid can perform a simulated laparoscopic task with accuracy comparable to a specialized surgical robot — is plausible but rests on a small, underpowered study.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central assertion, stated in the Introduction and Conclusion, is that LapSurgie is 'the first framework enabling humanoid robots to perform laparoscopic procedures' and that 'the proposed framework achieves operation accuracy comparable to the current gold standard dVRK, while significantly outperforming manual operation.' If correct, a general-purpose humanoid robot can grasp unmodified commercially available wristed laparoscopic instruments, obey the remote-center-of-motion constraint, and be teleoperated by a surgeon to perform structured surgical tasks with accuracy matching a specialized surgical robot.

Load-bearing premise

The inverse-mapping controller depends on an asserted kinematic model of the passive wristed instrument, specifically the linear coupling θ3 = 2θ1 and θ4 = 2θ2 (Eq. 12, k=2 described as 'found to be a gearing ratio') and the perpendicularity condition (Eq. 5: (Rh1[0,0,1]^T)·(x_h1 − x_h2)^T = 0). These relations are not independently measured or verified from the ArtiSential tool's manufacturer specifications. If the true gearing ratio or geometry differs, the computed handle poses will be wrong, and the demonstrated accuracy would degrade.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces LapSurgie, a teleoperation framework in which a humanoid robot (with a custom mount) grasps unmodified ArtiSential wristed laparoscopic instruments and is controlled by a surgeon through dVRK master manipulators. The main technical contribution is an inverse-mapping controller that reconstructs the desired tool-tip pose from handle poses while enforcing a remote-center-of-motion (RCM) constraint, requiring only a measured RCM location and tool dimensions. The system is evaluated in a user study with 14 participants (12 novices, 2 surgeons) performing a ring-transfer task on three platforms: the proposed humanoid system, the dVRK, and manual laparoscopy. The paper reports weighted error scores and completion times, and concludes that the humanoid achieves accuracy comparable to the dVRK and 'significantly outperforms' manual operation.

Significance. If the technical and empirical claims are sustained, this is an interesting step toward using general-purpose humanoid robots for laparoscopic surgery, potentially lowering infrastructure and cost barriers to robot-assisted MIS. The inverse-mapping formulation with an explicit RCM constraint for commercially available wristed instruments is a useful contribution that could generalize to other humanoid or non-specialized robotic manipulators. The authors are appropriately explicit about the system being at an initial feasibility stage and they provide a transparent experimental protocol. However, the central accuracy claims are currently supported only by non-significant pairwise comparisons in a small study, and key kinematic constants are asserted rather than verified; both points need strengthening before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table II and Section VI (Conclusion)] The Conclusion states that the proposed framework achieves accuracy 'comparable to the current gold standard dVRK, while significantly outperforming manual operation.' This is not supported by the statistics reported in Table II. For weighted error, the Humanoid vs. Manual comparison is p=0.132 in novices and p=0.228 in surgeons; both are far above α=0.05. The Humanoid vs. dVRK comparison is also non-significant (p=0.386 novices, p=0.571 surgeons), so 'comparable' is based on failure to reject the null in a small sample rather than on a demonstrated equivalence. Please either rephrase the central claim to match the evidence (e.g., 'showed lower average error than manual but not statistically significant in this sample') or provide a trial-level mixed-effects analysis that appropriately accounts for repeated measures and reports confidence intervals for the differences. This is a load-bea
  2. [Section III-B, Eqs. (5) and (12)] The inverse-mapping controller depends on two unverified kinematic assumptions: the perpendicularity condition in Eq. (5) and the linear coupling θ3 = 2θ1, θ4 = 2θ2 with k=2 in Eq. (12). These are stated as properties of the ArtiSential instrument, but no independent measurement, manufacturer specification, or calibration experiment is provided. If the true gearing ratio or geometry differs from k=2 or the perpendicularity assumption, the computed handle poses will be biased and the reported accuracy would not transfer to other instruments or even to other units of the same tool. Please add a kinematic calibration study (e.g., measuring actual θ3, θ4 as functions of handle angles for several units) or otherwise justify these constants from datasheets. Also report the residual weights wt and wa in Eq. (15), which are currently unspecified, and provide a sensitivity analysis with respect t
  3. [Section IV-B and Table II] The user study includes only 2 professional surgeons, making the surgeon-group statistics (means, standard deviations, p-values) extremely fragile. While this is acknowledged implicitly by the 'initial evidence' language, the paper still draws strong qualitative conclusions from the surgeon subgroup, e.g., 'expert surgeons achieve the lowest error rates on the Humanoid.' Please report per-participant data for the two surgeons, avoid over-interpreting n=2 subgroup means, and clearly mark the surgeon row as descriptive rather than inferential. Additionally, Table II does not state whether the paired t-tests are computed on per-trial data or on per-participant means. Non-independence of the eight trials per participant means per-trial t-tests would be invalid; please clarify and, if per-trial, reanalyze using participant-level summaries or a mixed-effects model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The notation (Rh1[0,0,1]^T)·(x_h1 − x_h2)^T is awkward: both sides appear to be column vectors, so the dot product should be written as n1 · (x_h1 − x_h2) = 0 or with explicit transpose on one of the vectors. This is a minor notational issue but could confuse readers.
  2. [Section IV-B, step 1] There is a typo: 'handle motion control, foot pedal usage, , the vision module' has a double comma and missing conjunction. Also, 'safety and cautions' could be rephrased as 'safety precautions.'
  3. [Fig. 10 / Section V-B] The questionnaire results are described as showing that the humanoid requires 'significantly less mental and physical demand compared with manual operation,' but no test statistics or p-values are reported for the questionnaire data. Either add the statistical analysis or soften the wording to avoid unsupported significance claims.
  4. [Tables I and II] In Table II, the p-values are labeled 'p vs. Manual' and 'p vs. dVRK' but it is not clear whether these are corrected for multiple comparisons. Since there are three platforms and multiple outcomes, please state whether any correction was applied or clarify that these are uncorrected pairwise tests.
  5. [Section III-B, Eq. (15)] The residual vector mixes position error, orientation error, and angle-limit penalties with different units. Please explicitly state the units of wt and wa and the numerical values used, as this is necessary for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kinematic model is a controller input and the user study is external evidence; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is the forward/inverse kinematic mapping of a wristed ArtiSential tool (Eqs. 1-17). That chain is not circular: Eq. 12 (theta3 = k*theta1, theta4 = k*theta2 with 'k = 2 is found to be a gearing ratio') and Eq. 5 (perpendicularity condition) are physical assumptions about the tool; they are inputs to the inverse-mapping controller, not conclusions drawn from the target feasibility claim. The inverse optimization in Eq. 16 minimizes a forward-model residual to recover the handle pose; this is standard model-based control, not a 'prediction' validated by its own construction. The user study (Table II) is an external task-level test: weighted errors and completion times are not produced by the kinematic model, and the kinematic constants do not enter the error metric. The conclusion's 'significantly outperforming manual operation' is weakened by the paper's own non-significant p-values (e.g., novices p=0.132 vs manual, p=0.386 vs dVRK; surgeons p=0.228 and p=0.571), but that is an evidential/statistical overstatement, not a circular reduction. Self-citations [24] and [43] provide background about hospital humanoids and robotic-surgery autonomy and are not load-bearing for the central demonstration. The paper even acknowledges a need for 'more accurate geometric modeling' in future work, confirming that the kinematic relations are recognized as assumptions rather than hidden conclusions. No step reduces the result to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central feasibility claim rests on a kinematic model with an unmeasured gearing constant k=2, a perpendicularity constraint, an ArUco-calibrated RCM point, and physical length measurements. The user study provides empirical support but is small and does not independently validate the model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • k (gearing ratio) = 2
    Eq. (12): θ3=kθ1, θ4=kθ2. Described as 'found to be a gearing ratio within the tool's physical mechanism' with no independent calibration or manufacturer specification; directly determines tool-tip orientation recovery.
  • θmax = 45°
    Soft joint angle limit in the residual Eq. (15), set as 'a mechanical constraint' without measurement or derivation.
  • wt, wa
    Weights in the inverse-mapping residual Eq. (15); values are not specified, affecting the optimized solution.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Law of cosines and rigid-body kinematics describe the passive instrument chain (Eqs. 3, 6-8).
    Background mathematical tools used to relate handle positions to tool-tip pose.
  • domain assumption The instrument shaft passes through a fixed RCM point x_rcm calibrated with ArUco markers, and this point remains fixed during manipulation.
    Central to the inverse mapping; if the port moves or calibration drifts, the RCM constraint is violated.
  • ad hoc to paper Perpendicularity condition Eq. (5): (Rh1[0,0,1]^T)·(x_h1 − x_h2)^T = 0, i.e., the handle-1 axis is perpendicular to the line connecting handle joints.
    Asserted as a geometric constraint of the passive mechanism without derivation or experimental validation for the ArtiSential tool.
  • ad hoc to paper θ3 = 2θ1 and θ4 = 2θ2 (Eq. 12), a linear coupling between handle angles and tool-tip wrist angles.
    Stated as a gearing ratio without independent measurement; if the actual ratio differs, orientation recovery is wrong.
  • domain assumption The humanoid forward kinematics f_FK(q) is accurate and the rigid transform eeTh1 is fixed.
    The control loop relies on precise robot joint configuration and wrist pose from forward kinematics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LapSurgie: Humanoid Robots Performing Surgery via Teleoperated Handheld Laparoscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V7WIIVJ2

@misc{pith2026251003529,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LapSurgie: Humanoid Robots Performing Surgery via Teleoperated Handheld Laparoscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V7WIIVJ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.03529}
}
read the original abstract

Robotic laparoscopic surgery has gained increasing attention in recent years for its potential to deliver more efficient and precise minimally invasive procedures. However, adoption of surgical robotic platforms remains largely confined to high-resource medical centers, exacerbating healthcare disparities in rural and low-resource regions. To close this gap, a range of solutions has been explored, from remote mentorship to fully remote telesurgery. Yet, the practical deployment of surgical robotic systems to underserved communities remains an unsolved challenge. Humanoid systems offer a promising path toward deployability, as they can directly operate in environments designed for humans without extensive infrastructure modifications -- including operating rooms. In this work, we introduce LapSurgie, the first humanoid-robot-based laparoscopic teleoperation framework. The system leverages an inverse-mapping strategy for manual-wristed laparoscopic instruments that abides to remote center-of-motion constraints, enabling precise hand-to-tool control of off-the-shelf surgical laparoscopic tools without additional setup requirements. A control console equipped with a stereo vision system provides real-time visual feedback. Finally, a comprehensive user study across platforms demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed framework and provides initial evidence for the feasibility of deploying humanoid robots in laparoscopic procedures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.03529 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Surgeons teleoperate humanoid robots to conduct [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overview of the humanoid-based laparoscopic framework. The target tool pose [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A coupling mount for a non-robotic laparoscopic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The relative orientation of the non-actuated instrument [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The user study task for each trial. It involves diverse tool motions and bi-manual operation, which presents high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Experiment condition for the peg-transfer task. Straws [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Per-trial weighted error and completion time for novices (boxplots) and the red stars indicate the mean performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Post-study questionnaire results for dVRK, Humanoid and Manual user study. The results demonstrate that the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. A Rapid Instrument Exchange System for Humanoid Robots in Minimally Invasive Surgery

    cs.RO 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A single-axis compliant docking system with FPV perception via HMD enables rapid instrument exchange on humanoid robots for MIS, showing robustness and quick learning in expert-novice tests.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Comparative analysis of laparoscopic versus open procedures in specific general surgical interventions,

    M. Patil Jr, P. Gharde, K. Reddy, K. Nayak, and M. Patil, “Comparative analysis of laparoscopic versus open procedures in specific general surgical interventions,”Cureus, vol. 16, no. 2, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Should all minimal access surgery be robot- assisted? a systematic review into the musculoskeletal and cognitive demands of laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery,

    A. Shugaba, J. E. Lambert, T. M. Bampouras, H. E. Nuttall, C. J. Gaffney, and D. A. Subar, “Should all minimal access surgery be robot- assisted? a systematic review into the musculoskeletal and cognitive demands of laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery,” Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 1520–1530, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Manipulation ergonomics and robotic surgery—a narrative review,

    S. W. Wong and P. Crowe, “Manipulation ergonomics and robotic surgery—a narrative review,”Annals of Laparoscopic and Endoscopic Surgery, vol. 9, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted versus endoscopic-assisted axillary lymph node dissection in node-positive breast cancer: a retrospective comparative study,

    Z. Wu, Q. Liu, Z. Li, Z. Chen, Y . Wu, Y . Luo, L. Wei, Q. Hu, and H. Li, “Efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted versus endoscopic-assisted axillary lymph node dissection in node-positive breast cancer: a retrospective comparative study,”World Journal of Surgical Oncology, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 179, 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    Recent advances in robot- assisted surgical systems,

    P. Biswas, S. Sikander, and P. Kulkarni, “Recent advances in robot- assisted surgical systems,”Biomedical Engineering Advances, vol. 6, p. 100109, 2023

    2023

  6. [6]

    Detailed cost of robotic-assisted surgery in the australian public health sector: from implementation to a multi-specialty caseload,

    K. McBride, D. Steffens, C. Stanislaus, M. Solomon, T. Anderson, R. Thanigasalam, S. Leslie, and P. G. Bannon, “Detailed cost of robotic-assisted surgery in the australian public health sector: from implementation to a multi-specialty caseload,”BMC Health Services Research, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 108, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Robotic surgery in low-and middle-income countries,

    J. Burke, J. Gnanaraj, J. Dhanda, B. Martins, E. Vinck, A. Saklani, and D. Harji, “Robotic surgery in low-and middle-income countries,” The Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 138–141, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Room size influences flow in robotic-assisted surgery,

    F. Kanji, T. Cohen, M. Alfred, A. Caron, S. Lawton, S. Savage, D. Shouhed, J. T. Anger, and K. Catchpole, “Room size influences flow in robotic-assisted surgery,”International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 15, p. 7984, 2021

    2021

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Robotic operating room configuration,

    H. Y . Zhao and C. Zhan, “Robotic operating room configuration,” in Pediatric Robotic Surgery, pp. 17–20, Springer, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    A novel afford- able user interface for robotic surgery training: design, development and usability study,

    A. Neri, M. Coduri, V . Penza, A. Santangelo, A. Oliveri, E. Turco, M. Pizzirani, E. Trinceri, D. Soriero, F. Boero,et al., “A novel afford- able user interface for robotic surgery training: design, development and usability study,”Frontiers in Digital Health, vol. 6, p. 1428534, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Robotic surgery in gastrointestinal surgery: history, current status, and challenges,

    Y . Liu, Q. Feng, and J. Xu, “Robotic surgery in gastrointestinal surgery: history, current status, and challenges,”Intelligent Surgery, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    How does robotic-assisted surgery change or safety culture?,

    J. M. Clanahan and M. M. Awad, “How does robotic-assisted surgery change or safety culture?,”AMA Journal of Ethics, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 615–623, 2023

    2023

  5. [13]

    Who and society of robotic surgery launch health innovation initiative to expand access to virtual care and telesurgery

    World Health Organization and Society of Robotic Surgery, “Who and society of robotic surgery launch health innovation initiative to expand access to virtual care and telesurgery.” WHO News Release, Aug. 2025. Accessed: 2025-09-12

    2025

  6. [14]

    A novel interface for the telementoring of robotic surgery,

    D. H. Shin, L. Dalag, R. A. Azhar, M. Santomauro, R. Satkunasivam, C. Metcalfe, M. Dunn, A. Berger, H. Djaladat, M. Nguyen,et al., “A novel interface for the telementoring of robotic surgery,”BJU international, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 302–308, 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    Surgical tele- mentoring using a robotic platform: initial experience in a military institution,

    H. Faris, C. Harfouche, J. Bandle, and G. Wisbach, “Surgical tele- mentoring using a robotic platform: initial experience in a military institution,”Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 37, no. 12, pp. 9159–9166, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Establishment of the world’s first telerobotic remote surgical service: for provision of advanced la- paroscopic surgery in a rural community,

    M. Anvari, C. McKinley, and H. Stein, “Establishment of the world’s first telerobotic remote surgical service: for provision of advanced la- paroscopic surgery in a rural community,”Annals of surgery, vol. 241, no. 3, pp. 460–464, 2005

    2005

  9. [17]

    Robotic pyeloplasty using internet protocol and satellite network-based telesurgery,

    C. Nguan, R. Morady, C. Wang, D. Harrison, D. Browning, R. Ray- man, and P. Luke, “Robotic pyeloplasty using internet protocol and satellite network-based telesurgery,”The International Journal of Med- ical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 10–14, 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    Remote telesurgery in humans: a systematic review,

    P. Barba, J. Stramiello, E. K. Funk, F. Richter, M. C. Yip, and R. K. Orosco, “Remote telesurgery in humans: a systematic review,”Surgical endoscopy, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 2771–2777, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Motion scaling solutions for improved performance in high delay surgical teleoperation,

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

    2019

  12. [20]

    Compensatory motion scaling for time-delayed robotic surgery,

    R. K. Orosco, B. Lurie, T. Matsuzaki, E. K. Funk, V . Divi, F. C. Holsinger, S. Hong, F. Richter, N. Das, and M. Yip, “Compensatory motion scaling for time-delayed robotic surgery,”Surgical endoscopy, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 2613–2618, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    From bench to bedside: The first live robotic surgery on the dvrk to enable remote telesurgery with motion scaling,

    F. Richter, E. K. Funk, W. S. Park, R. K. Orosco, and M. C. Yip, “From bench to bedside: The first live robotic surgery on the dvrk to enable remote telesurgery with motion scaling,” in2021 International Symposium on Medical Robotics (ISMR), pp. 1–7, IEEE, 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Virtual interactive presence and augmented re- ality (vipar) for remote surgical assistance,

    M. B. Shenai, M. Dillavou, C. Shum, D. Ross, R. S. Tubbs, A. Shih, and B. L. Guthrie, “Virtual interactive presence and augmented re- ality (vipar) for remote surgical assistance,”Operative Neurosurgery, vol. 68, pp. ons200–ons207, 2011

    2011

  15. [23]

    Augmented reality predictive displays to help mitigate the effects of delayed telesurgery,

    F. Richter, Y . Zhang, Y . Zhi, R. K. Orosco, and M. C. Yip, “Augmented reality predictive displays to help mitigate the effects of delayed telesurgery,” in2019 international conference on robotics and automa- tion (ICRA), pp. 444–450, IEEE, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Humanoids in hospitals: A technical study of humanoid surrogates for dexterous medical interventions,

    S. Atar, X. Liang, C. Joyce, F. Richter, W. Ricardo, C. Goldberg, P. Suresh, and M. Yip, “Humanoids in hospitals: A technical study of humanoid surrogates for dexterous medical interventions,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.12725, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Learning human-to-humanoid real-time whole-body teleoperation,

    T. He, Z. Luo, W. Xiao, C. Zhang, K. Kitani, C. Liu, and G. Shi, “Learning human-to-humanoid real-time whole-body teleoperation,” in2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 8944–8951, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Mixed reality teleoperation assistance for direct control of humanoids,

    L. Penco, K. Momose, S. McCrory, D. Anderson, N. Kitchel, D. Calvert, and R. J. Griffin, “Mixed reality teleoperation assistance for direct control of humanoids,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1937–1944, 2024

    1937

  19. [27]

    Clone: Closed-loop whole-body humanoid teleoperation for long- horizon tasks,

    Y . Li, Y . Lin, J. Cui, T. Liu, W. Liang, Y . Zhu, and S. Huang, “Clone: Closed-loop whole-body humanoid teleoperation for long- horizon tasks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08931, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Child (controller for humanoid imitation and live demonstration): a whole-body humanoid teleoperation system,

    N. Myers, O. Kwon, S. Yamsani, and J. Kim, “Child (controller for humanoid imitation and live demonstration): a whole-body humanoid teleoperation system,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.00162, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    An open-source research kit for the da vinci surgical system (dvrk),

    P. Kazanzideset al., “An open-source research kit for the da vinci surgical system (dvrk),” inICRA, 2014

    2014

  22. [30]

    Advancements and challenges in robotic-assisted surgery: A holistic review,

    A. Riad, “Advancements and challenges in robotic-assisted surgery: A holistic review,”Journal of Surgical Robotics, 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Robot-assistive minimally invasive surgery: trends and challenges,

    G. Dagnino, “Robot-assistive minimally invasive surgery: trends and challenges,”Robotics in Surgery, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    Upcoming multi-visceral robotic surgery systems: a sages review,

    A. Sarin, “Upcoming multi-visceral robotic surgery systems: a sages review,”Surgical Endoscopy, 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Star: Autonomy in robotic laparoscopic bowel anastomosis,

    H. Saeidiet al., “Star: Autonomy in robotic laparoscopic bowel anastomosis,”Science Robotics, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Srt-h: A hierarchical framework for long-horizon autonomous surgery,

    S.-H. t. Authors, “Srt-h: A hierarchical framework for long-horizon autonomous surgery,”Science Robotics, 2025

    2025

  27. [35]

    Robotic technology in emergency general surgery cases,

    G. Lunardiet al., “Robotic technology in emergency general surgery cases,”JAMA Surgery, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    Review of wrist mechanism design and applications in gastrointestinal mis,

    Y . Tuet al., “Review of wrist mechanism design and applications in gastrointestinal mis,”Surgical Endoscopy, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Robot-assisted surgery — cost and operational disadvantages,

    W. contributors, “Robot-assisted surgery — cost and operational disadvantages,”Wikipedia, 2025

    2025

  30. [38]

    Advancements and challenges in robotic-assisted surgery: A holistic review,

    A. Riyadholi, “Advancements and challenges in robotic-assisted surgery: A holistic review,”Journal of Surgical Robotics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 15–32, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    Omnih2o: Universal and dexterous human-to-humanoid whole-body teleoperation and learning,

    T. Heet al., “Omnih2o: Universal and dexterous human-to-humanoid whole-body teleoperation and learning,”arXiv, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Clone: Closed-loop whole-body humanoid teleoperation for long-horizon tasks,

    Y . Liet al., “Clone: Closed-loop whole-body humanoid teleoperation for long-horizon tasks,”arXiv, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    Heavy-lifting tasks via haptic teleoperation of a wheeled humanoid,

    Purushottamet al., “Heavy-lifting tasks via haptic teleoperation of a wheeled humanoid,”arXiv, 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    Tact: Humanoid whole-body contact manipulation through deep tactile sensing,

    T. t. Authors, “Tact: Humanoid whole-body contact manipulation through deep tactile sensing,”arXiv, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    The robot will see you now: Foundation models are the path forward for autonomous robotic surgery,

    M. Yip, “The robot will see you now: Foundation models are the path forward for autonomous robotic surgery,”Science Robotics, vol. 10, no. 104, p. eadt0684, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,

    S. G. Hart and L. E. Staveland, “Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research,” inAdvances in psychology, vol. 52, pp. 139–183, Elsevier, 1988

    1988

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.