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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 6/2020

01-06-2020 | Cholecystectomy | 2019 EAES Oral

A robotic flexible endoscope with shared autonomy: a study of mockup cholecystectomy

Authors: Chengzhi Song, Xin Ma, Xianfeng Xia, Philip Wai Yan Chiu, Charing Ching Ning Chong, Zheng Li

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 6/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Endoscope is the eye of surgeon in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Prevailing handheld endoscopes are manually steered, which can cause endoscope-instrument fencing. Robotic endoscopes can reduce the fatigue but could not reduce collisions. Handheld endoscopes with a flexible bending tip can reduce the shaft pivoting and collisions. However, its steering is challenging. In this paper, we present a robotic flexible endoscope with auto-tracking function and compare it with the conventional rigid endoscopes.

Methods

A robotic flexible endoscope (RFE) with shared autonomy is developed. The RFE could either track the instruments automatically or be controlled by a foot pedal. A mockup cholecystectomy was designed to evaluate the performance. Five surgeons were invited to perform the mockup cholecystectomy in an abdominal cavity phantom with a manual rigid endoscope (MRE), a robotic rigid endoscope (RRE), and the RFE. Space occupation, time consumption, and questionnaires based on the NASA task load index were adopted to evaluate the performances and compare the three endoscope systems. An ex vivo experiment was conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of using the RFE in a biological tissue environment.

Results

All surgeons completed the mockup cholecystectomy with the RFE independently. Failure occurred in the cases involving the RRE and the MRE. Inside the body cavity, the space occupied when using the RFE is 17.28% and 23.95% (p < 0.05) of that when using the MRE and the RRE, respectively. Outside the body cavity, the space occupied when using the RFE is 14.60% and 15.53% (p < 0.05) of that by using MRE and RRE. Time consumed in the operations with MRE, RRE, and RFE are 28.3 s, 93.2 s and 34.8 s, respectively. Questionnaires reveal that the performance of the RFE is the best among the three endoscope systems.

Conclusions

The RFE provides a wider field of view (FOV) and occupies less space than rigid endoscopes.
Literature
1.
2.
Vitiello V, Lee SL, Cundy TP, Yang GZ (2012) Emerging robotic platforms for minimally invasive surgery. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 6:111–126CrossRef
3.
Dakin GF, Gagner M (2003) Comparison of laparoscopic skills performance between standard instruments and two surgical robotic systems. Surg Endosc 17:574–579CrossRef
4.
Freschi C, Ferrari V, Melfi F, Ferrari M, Mosca F, Cuschieri A (2013) Technical review of the da Vinci surgical telemanipulator. Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 9:396–406CrossRef
5.
Wang Y (1996) Automated endoscope system for optimal positioning. CIM-INT MANUF 12(4):372CrossRef
6.
Taylor RH, Funda J, Eldridge B, Gomory S, Gruben K, LaRose D, Talamini M, Kavoussi L, Anderson J (1995) A telerobotic assistant for laparoscopic surgery. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 14(3):279–288CrossRef
7.
Gilbert JM (2009) The EndoAssist™ robotic camera holder as an aid to the introduction of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 91(5):389–393CrossRef
8.
Voros S, Haber GP, Menudet JF, Long JA, Cinquin P (2010) ViKY robotic scope holder: initial clinical experience and preliminary results using instrument tracking. IEEE-ASME T MECH 15(6):879–886
9.
Taniguchi K, Nishikawa A, Sekimoto M, Yasui M, Takiguchi S, Seki Y, Monden M, Miyazaki F (2006) Design of a novel wearable laparoscope manipulator: SMART (Synthetic Muscle Actuator based Robotic Technology). Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 1:213CrossRef
10.
Mirbagheri A, Farahmand F, Meghdari A, Karimian F (2011) Design and development of an effective low-cost robotic cameraman for laparoscopic surgery: RoboLens. Sci Iran 18(1):105–114CrossRef
11.
Kristin J, Geiger R, Kraus P, Klenzner T (2015) Assessment of the endoscopic range of motion for head and neck surgery using the SOLOASSIST endoscope holder. Int J Med Robot 11(4):418–423CrossRef
12.
Wijsman PJ, Broeders IA, Brenkman HJ, Szold A, Forgione A, Schreuder HW, Consten EC, Draaisma WA, Verheijen PM, Ruurda JP, Kaufman Y (2018) First experience with THE AUTOLAP™ SYSTEM: an image-based robotic camera steering device. Surg Endosc 32(5):2560–2566CrossRef
13.
Mettler L, Ibrahim M, Jonat W (1998) One year of experience working with the aid of a robotic assistant (the voice-controlled optic holder AESOP) in gynecological endoscopic surgery. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England) 13(10):2748–2750CrossRef
14.
Arezzo A, Ulmer F, Weiss O, Schurr M, Hamad M, Buess GF (2000) Experimental trial on solo surgery for minimally invasive therapy. Surg Endosc 14(10):955–959CrossRef
15.
Holländer SW, Klingen HJ, Fritz M, Djalali P, Birk D (2014) Robotic camera assistance and its benefit in 1033 traditional laparoscopic procedures: prospective clinical trial using a joystick-guided camera holder. Surg Technol Int 25:19–23PubMed
16.
Ozaki R, Kumakiri J, Kikuchi I, Kitade M, Matsuoka S, Jinushi M, Kono A, Takeda S (2011) Beneficial use of ENDOCAMELEON a novel optical devise for single port laparoscopic surgery for large ovarian cyst. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18(6):S113CrossRef
17.
18.
Li Z, Oo MZ, Nalam V, Thang VD, Ren H, Kofidis T, Yu H (2016) Design of a novel flexible endoscope—cardioscope. J Mech Robot 8(5):051014CrossRef
19.
Ko SY, Kim J, Lee WJ, Kwon DS (2007) Compact laparoscopic assistant robot using a bending mechanism. ADV Robot 21(5–6):689–709CrossRef
20.
Luo RC, Wang J, Chang CK, Perng YW (2014, August) Surgeon’s third hand: an assistive robot endoscopic system with intuitive maneuverability for laparoscopic surgery. In: 5th Proceedings of the IEEE RAS EMBS International Conference Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, pp 138–143
21.
Kazanzides P, Chen Z, Deguet A, Fischer GS, Taylor RH, DiMaio SP (2014, May) An open-source research kit for the da Vinci® Surgical System. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp 6434–6439
22.
Li Z, Du R (2013) Design and analysis of a bio-inspired wire-driven multi-section flexible robot. IJARS 10(4):209
23.
Li Z, Ren H, Chiu PWY, Du R, Yu H (2016) A novel constrained wire-driven flexible mechanism and its kinematic analysis. MMT 95:59–75
24.
Ma X, Song C, Chiu WYP, Li Z (2019) Autonomous flexible endoscope for minimally invasive surgery with enhanced safety. IEEE Robot Autom Lett (RA-L) 4(3):2607–2613CrossRef
25.
Wang Z, Liu Z, Ma Q, Cheng A, Liu YH, Kim S, Deguet A, Reiter A, Kazanzides P, Taylor RH (2017) Vision-based calibration of dual RCM-based robot arms in human-robot collaborative minimally invasive surgery. IEEE Robot Autom Lett (RA-L) 3(2):672–679CrossRef
26.
O'Donnell CRD, Thomas Eggemeier F (1986) Workload assessment methodology. In: Boff KR, Kaufman L, Thomas JP (eds) Handbook of perception and human performance. Cognitive processes and performance, vol II. Wiley-interscience, New York, p 42-1–42-43
27.
Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol 52:139–183CrossRef
28.
Yurko YY, Scerbo MW, Prabhu AS, Acker CE, Stefanidis D (2010) Higher mental workload is associated with poorer laparoscopic performance as measured by the NASA-TLX tool. Simul Healthc 5(5):267–271CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A robotic flexible endoscope with shared autonomy: a study of mockup cholecystectomy
Authors
Chengzhi Song
Xin Ma
Xianfeng Xia
Philip Wai Yan Chiu
Charing Ching Ning Chong
Zheng Li
Publication date
01-06-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 6/2020
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07241-8

Other articles of this Issue 6/2020

Surgical Endoscopy 6/2020 Go to the issue

Dynamic Manuscript

Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy by laparoscopy via a single-port approach for low-grade peritoneal malignancy

OriginalPaper

Laparoendoscopic rendezvous versus ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the management of cholecysto-choledocholithiasis: a retrospectively cohort study

2019 SAGES Oral

Bariatric surgery reduces long-term rates of cardiac events and need for coronary revascularization: a propensity-matched analysis

Review Article

A better route to ALPPS: minimally invasive vs open ALPPS

Consensus Statement

Consensus on international guidelines for management of groin hernias

2019 SAGES Oral

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is an independent predictor of poor follow-up and reaching ≤ 40% excess body weight loss at 1, 2, and 3 years after bariatric surgery