You are presented with multiple paper abstracts, alongside the associated literature review and chapter titles. Given the provided information, you are going to do a literature review. Please generate a coherent literature review that synthesizes the content, draws connections between different works, highlights major findings, and identifies any gaps in the existing research.

Literature Review Title: An Overview of Robotics in Functional Neurosurgery 
Chapter Title:  Robots in Functional Neurosurgery 
1. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB001):  Intraoperative imaging disrupts the rhythm of surgery despite providing an excellent opportunity for surgical monitoring and assessment. To allow surgery within real-time images, neuroArm, a teleoperated surgical robotic system, was conceptualized. The objective was to design and manufacture a magnetic resonance-compatible robot with a human-machine interface that could reproduce some of the sight, sound, and touch of surgery at a remote workstation. University of Calgary researchers worked with MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates engineers to produce a requirements document, preliminary design review, and critical design review, followed by the manufacture, preclinical testing, and clinical integration of neuroArm. During the preliminary design review, the scope of the neuroArm project changed to performing microsurgery outside the magnet and stereotaxy inside the bore. neuroArm was successfully manufactured and installed in an intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging operating room. neuroArm was clinically integrated into 35 cases in a graded fashion. As a result of this experience, neuroArm II is in development, and advances in technology will allow microsurgery within the bore of the magnet. neuroArm represents a successful interdisciplinary collaboration. It has positive implications for the future of robotic technology in neurosurgery in that the precision and accuracy of robots will continue to augment human capability. 
2. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB002):  The research of stereotactic apparatus to guide surgical devices began in 1908, yet a major part of today's stereotactic neurosurgeries still rely on stereotactic frames developed almost half a century ago. Robots excel at handling spatial information, and are, thus, obvious candidates in the guidance of instrumentation along precisely planned trajectories. In this review, we introduce the concept of stereotaxy and describe a standard stereotactic neurosurgery. Neurosurgeons' expectations and demands regarding the role of robots as assistive tools are also addressed. We list the most successful robotic systems developed specifically for or capable of executing stereotactic neurosurgery. A critical review is presented for each robotic system, emphasizing the differences between them and detailing positive features and drawbacks. An analysis of the listed robotic system features is also undertaken, in the context of robotic application in stereotactic neurosurgery. Finally, we discuss the current perspective, and future directions of a robotic technology in this field. All robotic systems follow a very similar and structured workflow despite the technical differences that set them apart. No system unequivocally stands out as an absolute best. The trend of technological progress is pointing toward the development of miniaturized cost-effective solutions with more intuitive interfaces. 
3. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB003):  This paper presents a review about neurosurgery, robotic assistants in this type of procedure, and the approach to the problem of brain tissue displacement, including techniques for obtaining medical images. It is especially focused on the phenomenon of brain displacement, commonly known as brain shift, which causes a loss of reference between the preoperative images and the volumes to be treated during image-guided surgery. Hypothetically, with brain shift prediction and correction for the neuronavigation system, minimal invasion trajectories could be planned and shortened. This would reduce damage to functional tissues and possibly lower the morbidity and mortality in delicate and demanding medical procedures such as the removal of a brain tumor. This paper also mentions other issues associated with neurosurgery and shows the way robotized systems have helped solve these problems. Finally, it highlights the future perspectives of neurosurgery, a branch of medicine that seeks to treat the ailments of the main organ of the human body from the perspective of many disciplines. 
4. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB004):  OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to determine whether a modified registration method could reduce registration error and postoperative electrode vector error and to analyze the method's clinical significance in deep brain stimulation (DBS) surgery. METHODS The first part of the study involved a skull model, in which three registration methods were tested using the ROSA (robotic stereotactic assistance) system. In the second part, four registration methods were clinically tested in patients undergoing DBS surgery using the ROSA system. Thirty-three patients (65 sides, group I) underwent the conventional registration method 2E, and registration errors were recorded. Thirty-eight patients (75 sides, group II) underwent four types of modified registration methods including 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D. Registration and electrode vector errors, intraoperative electrophysiological signal length (IESL), and DBS power-on voltage were recorded. The primary measure of efficacy was the change in the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and UPDRS Part III scores from baseline to 10 weeks after surgery. RESULTS In the skull model, the registration error (mean ± SD) was 0.56 ± 0.11 mm for method 1A, 0.35 ± 0.11 mm for method 1B (vs. 1A, p < 0.001), and 0.90 ± 0.15 mm for method 1C (vs. 1A, p < 0.001). In the clinical study, method 2C was selected for DBS surgery in group II since it had the smallest registration error among the four methods tested. The registration error was 0.62 ± 0.22 mm (mean ± SD) for group I and 0.27 ± 0.07 mm for group II (p < 0.001). Postoperative electrode vector error was 0.97 ± 0.31 mm for group I and 0.65 ± 0.23 mm for group II (p < 0.001). There was a positive correlation between registration error and electrode vector error in both groups (group I: r = 0.69, p < 0.001; group II: r = 0.71, p < 0.001). The mean IESL was 5.0 ± 0.9 mm in group I and 5.8 ± 0.7 mm in group II (p < 0.001). The mean DBS power-on voltage was 1.63 ± 0.44 V in group I and 1.48 ± 0.38 V in group II (p = 0.027). In the UPDRS score, group I showed 50% ± 16% improvement and group II showed 52% ± 18% improvement (p = 0.724); there was no statistically significant difference in improvement on the UPDRS. CONCLUSIONS In DBS surgery assisted by the ROSA system, registration error and electrode vector error showed a positive correlation. The modified registration method could reduce the registration error and electrode vector error, but the long-term effects need to be further observed and evaluated. 
5. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB005):  IntroductionStereotactic brain biopsy represents one of the earliest applications of surgical robotics. The aim of the present systematic review and bibliometric analysis was to evaluate the literature supporting robot-assisted brain biopsy and the extent to which the scientific community has accepted the technique.MethodsThe Cochrane and PubMed databases were searched over a 30-year period between 1st of January 1988 and 31st of December 2017. Titles and abstracts were screened to identify publications that met the following criteria: (1) featured patients with brain pathology, (2) undergoing stereotactic brain biopsy, (3) reporting robot-assisted surgery, and (4) outcome data were provided. The reference lists of selected studies were also sought, and expert opinion sought to identify further eligible publications. Selected manuscripts were then reviewed, and data extracted on effectiveness and safety. The status of scientific community acceptance was determined using a progressive scholarly acceptance analysis.ResultsAll identified studies were non-randomised, including 1 retrospective cohort study and 14 case series or reports. The diagnostic biopsy rate varied from 75 to 100%, and the average target accuracy varied from 0.9 to 4.5 mm. Use of the robot was aborted in two operations owing to geometric inaccessibility and an error in image registration but no associated adverse events were reported. A compounding progressive scholarly acceptance analysis suggested a trend towards acceptance of the technique by the scientific community.ConclusionsIn conclusion, robot-assisted stereotactic brain biopsy is an increasingly mainstream tool in the neurosurgical armamentarium. Further evaluation should proceed along the IDEAL framework with research databases and comparative trials. 
6. Abstract of Cited Paper (BIB006):  BACKGROUND ::: Robotic neuronavigation is becoming an important tool for neurosurgeons. We present a case study of a frameless stereotactic biopsy guided by the RONNA G3 robotic neuronavigation system. ::: ::: ::: METHODS ::: A 45 year-old patient with a history of vertigo, nausea and vomiting was diagnosed with multiple periventricular lesions. Neurological status was unremarkable. A frameless robotic biopsy of a brain lesion was performed. ::: ::: ::: RESULTS ::: Three tissue samples were obtained. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. Histological analysis showed a B-cell lymphoma. After merging the preoperative CT scan with the postoperative MRI and CT scans, the measured error between the planned and the postoperatively measured entry point was 2.24 mm and the measured error between the planned and postoperatively measured target point was 2.33 mm. ::: ::: ::: CONCLUSIONS ::: The RONNA G3 robotic system was used to navigate a Sedan brain biopsy needle to take tissue samples and could be a safe and precise tool for brain biopsy.

Literature Review:
Of various surgical procedures undertaken in neurosurgery, highest benefits of robotic intervention can happen in functional neurosurgery. Though a plethora of robotic surgical programs exist, BIB005 BIB006 BIB004 BIB003 BIB001 commercially available robots are few and far between. A relatively large number of stereotactic robotic programs have been documented in the literature. However, conversion of research programs to commercially successful products has been noted to be very few. The Neuromate Stereotactic robot (Integrated Surgical Systems), Renaissance system (Mazor Robotics), and ROSA (Medtech) are commercially available and designed for neurosurgical stereotactic procedures. Neuromate was the first to obtain U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for stereotactic neurosurgical procedures. All these systems have been used for functional neurosurgical procedures. The Ronna G3 ( University of Zagreb, Croatia) BIB007 and iSYS1 (iSYS Medizintechnik) BIB002 are newer systems for stereotactic applications.