Why the study?
Existing robotic platforms face barriers to widespread adoption such as complex hardware, nonintuitive controls, lack of force feedback, reliance on fluoroscopy, and high costs.
Current robotic systems in cardiovascular interventions face significant technical and economic barriers that limit their widespread adoption and disruptive potential.
Limitations in current robotic platforms warrant clinical caution; leaves open development of modular, haptic systems.
Interventional radiology is increasingly turning to robotic solutions to overcome limitations of manual catheterization, such as operator fatigue, procedural complications, and radiation exposure. Despite rapid advancements in robotic technologies, existing platforms face barriers to widespread adoption due to complex hardware, nonintuitive controls, and limited modularity, thereby affecting sterility, the absence of true force feedback, heavy reliance on fluoroscopy, high costs, and a lack of truly disruptive innovation. In effect, many systems function more as extensions of the surgeon's hand rather than as disruptive leaps. This review surveys 19 commercial and emerging robotic systems categorized based on the methods and technologies used, with a discussion of benefits and limitations for various specific indications. Integration of imaging, haptics, and economic considerations are also discussed. This comprehensive synthesis aims to offer insights into current capabilities, limitations, and potential future directions for researchers and engineers to advance this domain.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mandhumula et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: