## 3 Image-Guided Interventions  
It is clear from the Discussion in the last Section that both open and laparoscopic surgery options each have a number of advantages and disadvantages. In summary, the open strategy allows for direct entry and improved panorama but is accompanied by a larger incision and slower healing, while laparoscopic option allows for smaller incisions, faster healing, and less visible scars but may not be appropriate in all circumstances. As mentioned earlier, the choice of surgical strategy depends on several factors, including the patient's disease, the complexity of the procedure, and the expertise of the staff. Only after a comprehensive assessment can the most appropriate choice be offered to the patient, through evidence-based decision making [41]. We have also seen that robot-assisted laparoscopic and robotic techniques allow for more complex problems to be performed with improved surgical dexterity, ergonomics, and staff ease. An advanced extended strategy of such assistance going further towards task enhancement could be image-guided robotic surgery, thus exploiting the precision of robotic positioning and high-resolution 3-D vision thanks to scanner imaging. In fact, if we only consider vision and positioning skills in surgery, open surgery uses external light projection and the surgeon's hands, laparoscopic surgery replaces external light projection with internal light projection, robotic surgery uses pre-images and computer positioning, and image-guided surgery uses instantaneous imaging aiding in immediate positioning. The MI image-guided robotic interventions, in general, improve patient comfort and security along with precision in execution and therapeutic effectiveness. Moreover, such approaches can work at practically all body zones, involving surgery or implanted restricted drug release. The scanner type plays an important role in the procedure. Several imagers can be employed in image-assisted interventions. Still, even though the imaging processes are each adapted to specific cases [42], those employing ionizing emissions as positron or X-ray seem inappropriate for medical treatments of wide intervals as in the case of complex image-guided surgeries. Thus, scanners fitting such elongated surgeries are those reflecting nonionizing features, specifically ultrasound and magnetic resonance [43, 44, 45]. The scanner is supposed to deliver 3-D high-resolution panorama of tissue details alongside interventional robotic tools. Thus, the robotic support performs inside the scaffold of the image together with tissue partly involved, permitting action administration in a closed-loop manner, pursuing tissue topology, locating tools, and monitoring their actions. In such a way, the scanner capacities and the robot skills are fused in an effectual task. Note that the dimensions and positional accuracy of tools should be in compliance with the resolution of the scanner. The two nonionizing scanners can achieve the abovementioned duty with specific restrictions for each. The ultrasound scanner can only perform in airless and boneless windows [16, 17], while MRI requires a scaffold with a free electromagnetic field (EMF) environment, and different examples of metal-artifact evaluation in MRI and corresponding reduction techniques could be found in the studies of [46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51], but it can work universally in all organs of the body. In addition, ultrasound has appropriate flexibility and cost, while MRI, which allows excellent soft tissue images, has a more expensive and complex use. The choice between the two scanners therefore depends on the circumstances. However, when patient comfort and safety are important, procedures, such as brain surgery, should use MRI-guided robotics. Note that MRI offers an unequaled contrast permitting the imaging of tumors, besides other anomalies, imperceptible by other imaging scanners. It reflects exact 3-D vision competency, comprising multimodal imaging of, for instance, the blood stream, temperature, and tracking of biomarkers.