Literature DB >> 27000906

The effect of a silicone-coated robotic needle holder.

Norihiko Ishikawa1, Go Watanabe2, Yasumitsu Hirano2, Hideki Moriyama2, Masahiko Kawaguchi2.   

Abstract

We have evaluated a silicone-coated robotic needle holder. We measured the intensity and extension of a 7-0 Prolene suture after holding it with a robotic instrument. To prevent damage, we modified it by coating the jaws with silicone. In the first study there were four groups: Group C, suture not held by instruments (n = 6); Group R, suture held by a robotic instrument (n = 6); Group SO, suture held by a robotic instrument with one jaw coated with silicone (n = 6); and Group SB, suture held by a robotic instrument with both jaws coated with silicone (n = 6). Finally, one instrument with a single jaw coated with silicone and one with both jaws coated with silicone were tested to evaluate their manipulation capabilities. The intensity and extension of sutures in groups C, R, SO, and SB were 3.05 N/37.9 %, 2.28 N/23.9 %, 3.06 N/37.5 %, and 2.96 N/36.2 %, respectively. We also found that the grip force of the instrument with both jaws coated with silicone was low, which caused the needle to be unstable or to turn, resulting in poor suturing. Manipulation of the instrument with one jaw coated with silicone was satisfactory. It is concluded that the best way to avoid breaking small synthetic monofilament sutures is not to use the robotic needle holder; the holder can be used, however, if one jaw only is coated with silicone.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Damage; Robotics; Silicone; Suture

Year:  2012        PMID: 27000906     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-012-0359-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  8 in total

1.  Quality of computer enhanced totally endoscopic coronary bypass graft anastomosis--comparison to conventional technique.

Authors:  V Falk; J F Gummert; T Walther; M Hayase; G J Berry; F W Mohr
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 4.191

2.  What is the value of telerobotic technology in gastrointestinal surgery?

Authors:  A Perez; M J Zinner; S W Ashley; D C Brooks; E E Whang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-01-18       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Initial evaluation of robotic technology for microsurgical vasovasostomy.

Authors:  Wayne Kuang; Paul R Shin; Surena Matin; Anthony J Thomas
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 4.  Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Review of early clinical results.

Authors:  G H Ballantyne
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2002-07-29       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Manual robot assisted endoscopic suturing: time-action analysis in an experimental model.

Authors:  J P Ruurda; I A M J Broeders; B Pulles; F M Kappelhof; C van der Werken
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-05-28       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Suture damage during robot-assisted vascular surgery: is it an issue?

Authors:  Jeroen Diks; Denise Nio; Matteus A Linsen; Jan A Rauwerda; Willem Wisselink
Journal:  Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.719

7.  Robot-assisted laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass for aortoiliac occlusive disease: early clinical experience.

Authors:  D Nio; J Diks; M A M Linsen; M A Cuesta; C Gracia; J A Rauwerda; W Wisselink
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2005-02-25       Impact factor: 7.069

8.  First experiences with the da Vinci operating robot in thoracic surgery.

Authors:  J Bodner; H Wykypiel; G Wetscher; T Schmid
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 4.191

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.