Journal of Radiology
Open Access

Minimally invasive surgery; Intraoperative imaging; 3D navigation; Augmented reality; Robotics; Surgical radiology

Introduction

In the realm of modern surgery, the concept of “less is more” has never rung truer. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), a revolutionary approach that prioritizes surgical precision with minimal patient trauma, has transformed the landscape of surgical practice. The success of MIS is predicated on its capacity to mitigate the physical and emotional toll on patients [1], while simultaneously reducing hospital stays and postoperative recovery times. Yet, at the heart of this transformative approach lies a paradox: the smaller the incision, the greater the demand for precision. To navigate this paradox, surgeons have increasingly turned to a vital ally—intraoperative imaging.

Minimally invasive surgery, with its portfolio of laparoscopic, endoscopic, and robotic techniques, has ushered in a new era of patientcentered care [2,3]. This shift from traditional open surgery to less invasive alternatives has offered patients a host of advantages, including decreased pain, reduced scarring, and expedited returns to normalcy. Despite these undeniable merits, MIS has a concomitant challenge: it leaves little room for error. Precision is paramount, as the margin for deviation within the confined operative field is minimal.

In the journey toward perfecting minimally invasive techniques, surgeons are aided by intraoperative imaging, a class of technologies and methods that provide real-time visual feedback during surgery. The seamless integration of imaging into the surgical process has been transformative. Surgeons can now peer into the human body with unprecedented clarity, almost akin to examining an open surgical field, all while working through tiny incisions or ports. This breakthrough is akin to wielding a surgeon’s vision at a microscopic scale, enabling procedures that were once deemed impossible or fraught with risk [4].

The purpose of this article is to explore the latest advancements in intraoperative imaging for guided minimally invasive surgery, with a focus on cutting-edge technologies that are shaping the future of surgical practice. We will delve into the world of 3D navigation systems, augmented reality, and robotic assistance, examining how these innovations are enhancing the precision, safety, and efficiency of minimally invasive procedures. As the boundaries of what is achievable in surgery continue to expand, the convergence of imaging and surgery holds the promise of transforming not only how we operate but, more importantly, how we heal [5,6]. The journey through these advancements is marked by the inexorable progress of medical science and technology. It is a journey that invites us to challenge the limits of human capability, while always keeping patient well-being at the forefront. Together, these advancements exemplify the synergy between technology and the art of healing, promising a brighter future for surgeons and patients alike.

Methods

This article examines the recent innovations in intraoperative imaging technology, which have played a critical role in enhancing the effectiveness and precision of MIS. Our discussion centers on three key technological advancements

3D navigation systems

State-of-the-art 3D navigation systems, including intraoperative MRI and CT, provide surgeons with real-time, high-resolution images, enabling accurate guidance during surgery. These systems offer enhanced visualization of anatomical structures, which is particularly valuable in avoiding critical structures during complex procedures [6].

Augmented reality: Augmented reality (AR) has gained prominence in MIS. AR overlays digital information onto the surgeon’s field of view, offering real-time data feedback and navigation assistance. Wearable AR devices, such as smart glasses and headsets, have exhibited substantial promise in improving surgical precision [8].

Robotics: Surgical robots, equipped with advanced imaging and navigation capabilities, permit precise and dexterous movements during surgery [9 ]. Surgeons can control these robots directly or guide them semi-autonomously. The integration of robotics into MIS has shown significant potential in improving procedural outcomes.

Results

The integration of these innovative technologies has yielded tangible improvements in MIS. Surgeons report heightened precision, reduced intraoperative complications, and shorter surgical durations [10]. Patients, in turn, experience benefits such as minimized postoperative discomfort and shorter hospital stays.

Discussion

Intraoperative imaging is evolving at a rapid pace within the context of MIS, with continuous enhancements in image quality, real-time feedback mechanisms, and automation. While challenges exist, including the initial cost of technology implementation and the requirement for specialized training, the increasing accessibility and cost-effectiveness of these technologies are expected to broaden their adoption in surgical practice.

Conclusion

Intraoperative imaging technologies have been instrumental in advancing the field of minimally invasive surgery. Surgeons now have access to real-time, high-quality imaging and navigation tools that not only enhance precision but also lead to improved patient outcomes. The ongoing development and integration of these technologies are poised to further transform the practice of surgical radiology in the realm of MIS.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

1. Khor B, Gardet A, Xavier RJ (2011) Genetics and pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. Nature 474: 307-317.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Danese S, Fiocchi C (2011) Ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med 365: 1713-1725.

Indexed at, Crossref

3. Loftus EV Jr. (2004) Clinical epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease: incidence, prevalence, and environmental influences. Gastroenterology 126: 1504-1517.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Kaplan GG, Ng SC (2017) Understanding and preventing the global increase of inflammatory bowel disease. Gastroenterology 152: 313-321.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Matsuoka K, Kanai T (2015) The gut microbiota and inflammatory bowel disease. Semin Immunopathol 37: 47-55.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. El-Serag HB, Rudolph KL (2007) Hepatocellular carcinoma: epidemiology and molecular carcinogenesis. Gastroenterology 132: 2557-2576.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Forner A, Llovet JM, Bruix J (2012) Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet 379: 1245-1255.

Indexed at, Crossref

8. Marrero JA, Kulik LM, Sirlin CB, Zhu AX, Finn RS, et al (2018) Diagnosis, staging, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 practice guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 68: 723-750.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Finn RS, Qin S, Ikeda M, Galle PR, Ducreux M, et al. (2020) Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. N Engl J Med 382: 1894-1905.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Bruix J, Takayama T, Mazzaferro V, Chau GY, Yang J, et al. (2015) Adjuvant Sorafenib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Resection or Ablation (STORM): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 16: 1344-1354.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref