Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 1/2010

01-01-2010 | New Technology

Initial trial of a stereoscopic, insertable, remotely controlled camera for minimal access surgery

Authors: Dennis L. Fowler, Tie Hu, Tejas Nadkarni, Peter K. Allen, Nancy J. Hogle

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 1/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Although video-laparoscopy has enabled successful minimal access surgery, the nature of the technology causes many troublesome limitations: (1) the fulcrum effect of the insertion site through the abdominal wall limits the angle of view, (2) the camera operator must use counterintuitive movements, (3) the laparoscope occupies an incision which otherwise could be used for an instrument, and (4) the laparoscope provides a two-dimensional image.

Methods

A stereoscopic, insertable, remotely controlled camera was developed to overcome the limitations imposed by traditional video-laparoscopy. Additional functionality included digital zoom, picture-in-picture (PIP), and tracking capability for autonomous function of the camera. Four surgical tasks were performed twice in a porcine model, once using the insertable camera and once using a standard video-laparoscope setup for visualization. Running the bowel, simulated laparoscopic appendectomy, laparoscopic nephrectomy, and laparoscopic suturing and tying were measured for time, blood loss, and complications. Digital zoom, PIP, and the ability of the computer to move the camera to track a marked instrument were subjectively evaluated.

Results

The tasks were aborted in one animal because a new three-dimensional (3D) display could not be synchronized with the camera and in another animal because a motor in the camera failed. The tasks were all completed twice in two animals. The mean time was less for all procedures using the insertable camera. There was no significant blood loss and there were no complications. Digital zoom and PIP displaying both a close-up and a panoramic view were subjectively felt to improve visualization by all observers. The computer could reliably move the camera to track a marked instrument to keep it in the center of the field of view.

Conclusions

This preliminary proof-of-concept study suggests that a stereoscopic, insertable, remotely controlled camera may provide better visualization during minimal access surgery by overcoming many of the limitations of video-laparoscopy.
Literature
1.
Miller A, Allen P, Fowler D (2004) In vivo stereoscopic imaging system with 5 degrees-of-freedom for minimal access surgery. In Proceedings of MMVR 12. IOS Press, pp. 234–240
2.
Strong VEM, Hogle NJ, Fowler DL (2005) Efficacy of novel robotic camera vs. a standard laparoscopic camera. Surg Innov 12:315–318CrossRefPubMed
3.
Hu T, Allen PK, Fowler DL (2007) In vivo pan/tilt endoscope with integrated light source. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)
4.
Hu T, Allen PK, Goldman R, Hogle NJ, Fowler DL (2008) In vivo pan/tilt endoscope with integrated light source, zoom and auto-focusing. Stud Health Technol Inform 132:174–179 ID: 18391281PubMed
5.
Hogle NJ, Hu T, Allen PK, Fowler DL (2008) Comparison of monoscopic insertable, remotely controlled imaging device with a standard laparoscope in a porcine model. Surg Innov, Oct 22. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 18945706
6.
Hu T, Allen PK, Hogle NJ, Fowler DL (2008) Insertable surgical imaging device with pan, tilt, zoom, and lighting. Int J Robot Res (In Press, accepted for publication, Nov. 2008)
7.
Hawks JA, Rentschler ME, Redden L, Infanger R, Dumpert J, Farritor S et al (2008) Towards an in vivo wireless mobile robot for surgical assistance. Stud Health Technol Inform 132:153–158PubMed
8.
Rentschler ME, Oleynikov D (2007) Recent in vivo surgical robot and mechanism developments. Surg Endosc 21(9):1477–1481CrossRefPubMed
9.
Rentschler ME, Platt SR, Dumpert J, Farritor SM, Oleynikov D (2006) In vivo laparoscopic robotics. Int J Surg 4(3):167–171CrossRefPubMed
10.
Rentschler ME, Dumpert J, Platt SR, Ahmed SI, Farritor SM, Oleynikov D (2006) Mobile in vivo camera robots provide sole visual feedback for abdominal exploration and cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 20(1):135–138CrossRefPubMed
11.
Oleynikov D, Rentschler ME, Dumpert J, Platt SR, Farritor SM (2005) In vivo robotic laparoscopy. Surg Innov 12(2):177–181CrossRefPubMed
12.
Blavier A, Gaudissart Q, Cadiere GB, Nyssen AS (2006) Impact of 2D and 3D vision on performance of novice subjects using da Vinci robotic system. Acta Chir Belg 106(6):662–664PubMed
13.
Badani KK, Bhandari A, Tewari A, Menon M (2005) Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional suturing: is there a difference in a robotic surgery setting? J Endourol 19(10):1212–1215CrossRefPubMed
14.
Joseph JV, Oleynikov D, Rentschler M, Dumpert J, Patel HR (2008) Microrobot assisted laparoscopic urological surgery in a canine model. J Urol 180(5):2202–2205CrossRefPubMed
15.
Rentschler ME, Dumpert J, Platt SR, Farritor SM, Oleynikov D (2007) Natural orifice surgery with an endoluminal mobile robot. Surg Endosc 21(7):1212–1215CrossRefPubMed
16.
Lehman AC, Dumpert J, Wood NA, Redden L, Visty AQ, Farritor S et al (2009) Natural orifice cholecystectomy using a miniature robot. Surg Endosc 23(2):260–266CrossRefPubMed
17.
Lehman AC, Rentschler ME, Farritor SM, Oleynikov D (2006) Endoluminal minirobots for transgastric peritoneoscopy. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 15(6):384–388CrossRefPubMed
18.
Lehman AC, Dumpert J, Wood NA, Visty AQ, Farritor SM, Oleynikov D (2008) In vivo robotics for natural orifice transgastric peritoneoscopy. Stud Health Technol Inform 132:236–241PubMed
19.
Metadata
Title
Initial trial of a stereoscopic, insertable, remotely controlled camera for minimal access surgery
Authors
Dennis L. Fowler
Tie Hu
Tejas Nadkarni
Peter K. Allen
Nancy J. Hogle
Publication date
01-01-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 1/2010
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0541-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2010

Surgical Endoscopy 1/2010 Go to the issue

Letter-Reply

Safe and feasible inflow occlusion in laparoscopic liver resection

Letter

Letter in response to: Mazeh H, Greenstein AJ, Swedish K, Nguyen SQ, Lipskar A, Weber KJ, Chin EH, Divino CM (2009) Laparoscopic and open reversal of Hartmann’s procedure—a comparative retrospective analysis (Surg Endosc 23:496–502)

OriginalPaper

Usefulness in NOTES of an intra-abdominal antifogging wireless charge-coupled device (CCD) camera with pantograph-type needle unit for placement to the intra-abdominal wall

Review

Laparoscopic treatment of Mirizzi syndrome: a systematic review

OriginalPaper

Laparoscopic oesophageal cardiomyotomy without fundoplication in children with achalasia: a 10-year experience

Dynamic Manuscript

Endotherapy for severe and complete pharyngo-esophageal post-radiation stenosis using wires, balloons and pharyngo-esophageal puncture (PEP) (with videos)