Literature DB >> 19357921

Development of a compact laparoscope manipulator (P-arm).

Mitsugu Sekimoto1, Atsushi Nishikawa, Kazuhiro Taniguchi, Shuji Takiguchi, Fumio Miyazaki, Yuichiro Doki, Masaki Mori.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laparoscope manipulating robots are useful for maintaining a stable view during a laparoscopic operation and as a substitute for the surgeon who controls the laparoscope. However, there are several problems to be solved. A large apparatus sometimes interferes with the surgeon. The setting and repositioning is awkward. Furthermore, the initial and maintenance costs are expensive. This study was designed to develop a new laparoscope manipulating robot to overcome those problems.
METHODS: We developed a compact robot applicable for various types of laparoscopic surgery with less expensive materials. The robot was evaluated by performing an in vitro laparoscopic cholecystectomy using extracted swine organs. Then, the availability of the robot to various operations was validated by performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, anterior resection of the rectum, and distal gastrectomy using a living swine. The reliability of the system was tested by long-time continuous running.
RESULTS: A compact and lightweight laparoscope manipulating robot by the name of P-arm was developed. The surgical time of an in vitro laparoscopic cholecystectomy with and without the P-arm was not different. The three types of operations were accomplished successfully. During the entire procedure, the P-arm worked without trouble and did not interfere with the surgeons. Continuous 8-h operating tests were performed three times and neither discontinuance nor trouble occurred with the system.
CONCLUSIONS: The P-arm worked steadily for various swine operations, without interfering with surgeon's work.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19357921     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-009-0460-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  26 in total

1.  Surgeon workload and motion efficiency with robot and human laparoscopic camera control.

Authors:  G V Kondraske; E C Hamilton; D J Scott; C A Fischer; S T Tesfay; R Taneja; R J Brown; D B Jones
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-07-08       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Trocar arrangement for HALS.

Authors:  A Lopez-Pujals; Raymond J Leveillee
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.942

3.  The da Vinci robotic system for general surgical applications: a critical interim appraisal.

Authors:  Johannes Bodner; Florian Augustin; Heinze Wykypiel; John Fish; Gilbert Muehlmann; Gerold Wetscher; Thomas Schmid
Journal:  Swiss Med Wkly       Date:  2005-11-19       Impact factor: 2.193

4.  Laparoscopic visual field. Voice vs foot pedal interfaces for control of the AESOP robot.

Authors:  M E Allaf; S V Jackman; P G Schulam; J A Cadeddu; B R Lee; R G Moore; L R Kavoussi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Solo surgery--with the aid of a robotic assistant.

Authors:  D J Turner
Journal:  J Telemed Telecare       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 6.184

6.  Comparison of surgical performance during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy of two robotic camera holders, EndoAssist and AESOP: a pilot study.

Authors:  Andrew A Wagner; Ioannis M Varkarakis; Richard E Link; Wendy Sullivan; Li-Ming Su
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 2.649

7.  The lateral approach to laparoscopic splenectomy.

Authors:  A Park; M Gagner; A Pomp
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 2.565

8.  Effects of the beach chair position, positive end-expiratory pressure, and pneumoperitoneum on respiratory function in morbidly obese patients during anesthesia and paralysis.

Authors:  Franco Valenza; Federica Vagginelli; Alberto Tiby; Silvia Francesconi; Giulio Ronzoni; Massimiliano Guglielmi; Marco Zappa; Ezio Lattuada; Luciano Gattinoni
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 7.892

9.  Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control .

Authors:  L R Kavoussi; R G Moore; J B Adams; A W Partin
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 10.  Hand-assisted or laparoscopic-assisted approach in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  A G J Aalbers; S S A Y Biere; M I van Berge Henegouwen; W A Bemelman
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-04-24       Impact factor: 4.584

View more
  4 in total

1.  Locally operated assistant manipulators with selectable connection system for robotically assisted laparoscopic solo surgery.

Authors:  Shohei Fukui; Toshikazu Kawai; Yuji Nishizawa; Atsushi Nishikawa; Tatsuo Nakamura; Noriyasu Iwamoto; Yuki Horise; Ken Masamune
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2021-03-12       Impact factor: 2.924

2.  Tool guidance using a compact robotic assistant.

Authors:  Carl A Nelson; Xiaoli Zhang; Shelby Buettner; Dmitry Oleynikov
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2009-09-23

3.  Multipurpose surgical robot as a laparoscope assistant.

Authors:  Carl A Nelson; Xiaoli Zhang; Bhavin C Shah; Matthew R Goede; Dmitry Oleynikov
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-12-29       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Minimally invasive single-site surgery for the digestive system: A technological review.

Authors:  Parag W Dhumane; Michele Diana; Joel Leroy; Jacques Marescaux
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 1.407

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.