Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 21, Issue 9, pp 1477–1481 | Cite as

Recent in vivo surgical robot and mechanism developments



The surgical landscape is quickly changing because of the major driving force of robotics. Well-established technology that provides robotic assistance from outside the patient may soon give way to alternative approaches that place the robotic mechanisms inside the patient, whether through traditional laparoscopic ports or through other, natural orifices. While some of this technology is still being developed, other concepts are being evaluated through clinical trials. This article examines the state of the art in surgical robots and mechanisms by providing an overview of the ex vivo robotic systems that are commercially available to in vivo mechanisms, and robotic assistants that are being tested in animal models.


Laparoscopy Robotics In vivo Surgery NOTES 


  1. 1.
    Ang W (2004) Active Tremor Compensation in Handheld Instrument for Microsurgery. Doctoral dissertation, tech report SMU-RI-TR-04-28, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ballantyne GH (2002) Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Surg Endosc 16: 1389–1402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breedveld P, Danielle E, Van Gorp M (2004) Locomotion through the intestine by means of rolling stents. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical ConferencesGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Choi D, Riviere C (2005) Flexure-based manipulator for active handheld microsurgical instrument. Proceedings of the 27th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBS), September 2005, pp. 2325–2328Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dakin GF, Gagner M (2003) Comparison of laparoscopic skills performance between standard instruments and two surgical robotic systems. Surg Endosc 17: 574 –579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dario P, Stefanini C, Menciassi A (2004) Modeling and experiments on a legged microrobot locomoting in a tubular, compliant and slippery environment. Int Symp Exp Robotics ISER, Singapore, 18–21 June 2004Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Degani A, Choset H, Wolf A, Zenati M (2006) Highly articulated robotic probe for minimally invasive surgery. Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation, Orlando, FL, May 2006Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flynn AM, Udayakumar KR, Barrett DS, McLurkin JD, Franck DL, Shectman AN (1995) Tomorrow’s surgery: micromotors and microrobots for minimally invasive procedures. Minimally Invasive Surg Allied Technol 7: 343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franzino RJ (2003) The Laprotek surgical system and the next generation of robotics. Surg Clin North Am 83: 1317–1320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fukuda T, Guo S, Kosuge K, Arai F, Negoro M, Nakabayashi K (1994) Micro active catheter system with multi degrees of freedom. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, May 1994, pp 2290–2295Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glukhovsky A, Jacob H (2004) The development and application of wireless capsule endoscopy. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 1: 114–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grundfest SW, Burdick JW, Slatkin AB (1995) The Development of a robotic endoscope. Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 162–171Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jagannath SB, Kantsevoy SV, Vaughn CA, Chung S, Cotton P, Gostout C, Hawes R, Pasricha P, Scorpio D, Magee C (2005) Peroral transgastric endoscopic ligation of fallopian tubes with long-term survival in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 61: 449–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kalloo AN, Singh VK, Jagannath SB, Niiyama H, Hill S, Vaughn C, Magee C, Kantsevoy S (2004) Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity. Gastrointest Endosc 60: 114–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kantsevoy SV, Jagannath SB, Niiyama H, Chung S, Cotton P, Gostout C, Hawes R, Pasricha P, Magee C, Vaughn C (2005) Endoscopic gastrojejunostomy with survival in a porcine model. Gastrointest Endosc 62: 287–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kantsevoy SV, Hu B, Jagannath SB, Vaughn CA, Beitler DM, Chung SSC, Cotton PB, Gostout CJ, Hawes RH, Pasricha PJ, Magee CA, Pipitone LJ, Talamini MA, Kalloo AN (2006) Transgastric endoscopic splenectomy: is it possible? Surg Endosc 20: 522–525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    MacFarlane M, Rosen J, Hannaford B, Pellegrini C, Sinanan M (1999) Force feedback grasper helps restore the sense of touch in minimally invasive surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 3: 278–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Melvin WS, Needleman BJ, Krause KR, Schneider C, Ellison EC (2002) Computer-enhanced vs. standard laparoscopic antireflux surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 6: 11–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Menciassi A, Moglia A, Gorini S, Pernorio G, Stefanini C, Dario P (2005) Shape memory alloy clamping devices of a capsule for monitoring tasks in the gastrointestinal tract. J Micromech Microeng 15: 2045–2055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Menciassi A, Stefanini C, Gorini S, Pernorio G, Kim B, Park JO, Dario P (2004) Locomotion of a legged capsule in the gastrointestinal tract: theoretical study and preliminary technological results. IEEE International Conference on Engineering in Medicine and Biology, San Francisco, CA, 1–4, Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meron G (200) The development of the swallowable video capsule. Gastrointest Endosc 6:817–819Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moorthy K, Munz Y, Dosis A, Hernandez J, Martin S, Bello F, Rockall T, Darzi A (2004) Dexterity enhancement with robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 18: 790–795PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nio D, Bemelman WA, den Boer KT, Dunker MS, Gouma DJ, van Gulik TM (2002) Efficiency of manual vs. robotical (Zeus) assisted laparoscopic surgery in the performance of standardized tasks. Surg Endosc 16: 412–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Park P, Bergström M, Ikeda K, Fritscher-Ravens A, Swain P (2005) Experimental studies of transgastric gallbladder surgery: cholecystectomy and cholecystogastric anastomosis. Gastrointest Endosc 61: 601–606PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patronik N, Zenati MA, Riviere C (2004) Crawling on the heart: a mobile robotic device for minimally invasive cardiac interventions. In C Barillot, DR Haynor, P Hellier (eds), Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2004 Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Patronik NA, Zenati MA, Riviere CN (2005) Preliminary evaluation of a mobile robotic device for navigation and intervention on the beating heart. Comput Aided Surg 10: 225–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Phee L, Accoto D, Menciassi A, Stefanini C, Carrozza M, Dario P (2002) Analysis and development of locomotion devices for the gastrointestinal tract. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 49: 613–616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rentschler M, Dumpert J, Platt SR, Farritor S, Oleynikov D (2006) Mobile in vivo robots provide sole visual feedback for abdominal exploration and cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 20: 135–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rentschler M, Dumpert J, Platt S, Farritor S, Oleynikov D (2007) Natural orifice surgery with an endoluminal mobile robot. Surg Endosc (in press)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rentschler M, Dumpert J, Platt S, Iagnemma K, Oleynikov D, Farritor S (2007) An in vivo mobile robot for surgical vision and task assistance. ASME J Med Devices 1(1):23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rentschler M, Dumpert J, Platt SR, Iagnemma K, Oleynikov D, Farritor S (2006) Modeling, analysis, and experimental study of in vivo wheeled robotic mobility. IEEE Trans Robotics 22: 308–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rentschler M, Iagnemma K, Farritor S (2007) Mechanical design of robotic in vivo wheeled mobility. ASME J Mech Design (in press)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Riviere C, Ang W, Khosla P (2003) Toward active tremor canceling in handheld microsurgical instruments. IEEE Trans Robotics Automation 15: 793–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rosen J, Hannaford B, MacFarlane M, Sinanan M (1999) Force controlled and teleoperated endoscopic grasper for minimally invasive surgery—experimental performance evaluation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 46: 1212–1221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rosen J, Lum M, Trimble D, Hannaford B, Sinanan M (2005) Spherical mechanism analysis of a surgical robot for minimally invasive surgery—analytical and experimental approaches. In Medicine Meets Virtual Reality vol. 111, IOS Press, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 422–428Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Satava RM (2002) Surgical robotics: the early chronicles. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12: 6–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schurr MO, Buess G, Neisius B, Voges U (2000) Robotics and telemanipulation technologies for endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 14: 375–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Smart Pill Corporation, (2005)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Strong VEM, Hogle NJ, Fowler DL (2005) Efficacy of novel robotic camera vs a standard laparoscopic camera. Surg Innovation 12: 315–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Suzumori K, Iikura S, Tanaka H (1991) Development of flexible microactuator and its applications to robotics mechanisms. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 21–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Nebraska Medical CenterOmahaUSA

Personalised recommendations