Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 1238–1246 | Cite as

Magnetic air capsule robotic system: proof of concept of a novel approach for painless colonoscopy

  • P. Valdastri
  • G. Ciuti
  • A. Verbeni
  • A. Menciassi
  • P. Dario
  • A. Arezzo
  • M. Morino
Article

Abstract

Background

Despite being considered the most effective method for colorectal cancer diagnosis, colonoscopy take-up as a mass-screening procedure is limited mainly due to invasiveness, patient discomfort, fear of pain, and the need for sedation. In an effort to mitigate some of the disadvantages associated with colonoscopy, this work provides a preliminary assessment of a novel endoscopic device consisting in a softly tethered capsule for painless colonoscopy under robotic magnetic steering.

Methods

The proposed platform consists of the endoscopic device, a robotic unit, and a control box. In contrast to the traditional insertion method (i.e., pushing from behind), a “front-wheel” propulsion approach is proposed. A compliant tether connecting the device to an external box is used to provide insufflation, passing a flexible operative tool, enabling lens cleaning, and operating the vision module. To assess the diagnostic and treatment ability of the platform, 12 users were asked to find and remove artificially implanted beads as polyp surrogates in an ex vivo model. In vivo testing consisted of a qualitative study of the platform in pigs, focusing on active locomotion, diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities, safety, and usability.

Results

The mean percentage of beads identified by each user during ex vivo trials was 85 ± 11%. All the identified beads were removed successfully using the polypectomy loop. The mean completion time for accomplishing the entire procedure was 678 ± 179 s. No immediate mucosal damage, acute complications such as perforation, or delayed adverse consequences were observed following application of the proposed method in vivo.

Conclusions

Use of the proposed platform in ex vivo and preliminary animal studies indicates that it is safe and operates effectively in a manner similar to a standard colonoscope. These studies served to demonstrate the platform’s added advantages of reduced size, front-wheel drive strategy, and robotic control over locomotion and orientation.

Keywords

Colonoscopy Colorectal cancer Robotic endoscopy Wireless capsule endoscopy Advanced colonoscopy Self-propelling colonoscopy 

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization, www.who.int/gho/ncd/mortality_morbidity/cancer_text. Accessed 29 July 2011
  2. 2.
    Cancer Research UK (2009) By stage at diagnosis. Cancer Research UK, London. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/%20cancerstats/types/bowel/survival/index.htm#stage. Accessed 29 July 2011
  3. 3.
    Berg AO, Allan JD, Frame PS, Homer CJ, Johnson MS, Klein JD, Lieu TA, Mulrow CD, Orleans CT, Peipert JF, Pender NJ, Siu AL, Teutsch SM, Westhoff C, Woolf SH (2002) Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendation and rationale. Ann Intern Med 137(2):129–131Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I, Wooldrage K, Hart AR, Northover JMA, Parkin DM, Wardle J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J (2010) Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Lancet 375(9726):1624–1633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D et al (2003) Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationaledupdate based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 124:544–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bujanda L, Sarasqueta C, Zubiaurre L, Cosme A, Muñoz C, Sánchez A, Martín C, Tito L, Piñol V, Castells A, Llor X, Xicola RM, Pons E, Clofent J, de Castro ML, Cuquerella J, Medina E, Gutierrez A, Arenas JI, Jover R (2007) Low adherence to colonoscopy in the screening of first-degree relatives of patients with colorectal cancer. Gut 56:1714–1718PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fernandez-Urien I, Carretero C, Borda A, Muñoz-Navas M (2008) Colon capsule endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 14:5265–5268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loeve A, Breedveld P, Dankelman J (2010) Scopes too flexible and too stiff. IEEE Pulse 1(3):26–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eickhoff A, Van Dam J, Jakobs R, Kudis V, Hartmann D, Damian U, Weickert U, Schilling D, Riemann JF (2007) Computer-assisted colonoscopy (the NeoGuide endoscopy system): results of the first human clinical trial (“PACE study”). Am J Gastroenterol 102(2):261–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee SH, Chung IK, Kim SJ, Kim JO, Ko BM, Hwangbo Y, Kim WH, Park DH, Lee SK, Park CH, Baek IH, Park DI, Park SJ, Ji JS, Jang BI, Jeen YT, Shin JE, Byeon JS, Eun CS, Han DS (2008) An adequate level of training for technical competence in screening and diagnostic colonoscopy: a prospective multicenter evaluation of the learning curve. Gastrointest Endosc 67(4):683–689PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cruz-Correa M, Schultz K, Jagannath S, Harris M, Kantsevoy S, Bedine M, Kalloo A (2007) Performance characteristics and comparison of two fecal occult blood tests in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Dig Liver Dis 52(4):1009–1013Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aschoff AJ, Ernst AS, Brambs HJ, Juchems MS (2008) CT colonography: an update. Eur Radiol 18(3):429–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Achiam MP, Chabanova E, Løgager V, Thomsen HS, Rosenberg J (2007) Implementation of MR colonography. Abdom Imag 32(4):457–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tumino E, Sacco R, Bertini M, Bertoni M, Parisi G, Capria A (2010) Endotics system vs colonoscopy for the detection of polyps. World J Gastroenterol 16(43):5452–5456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fritscher-Ravens A, Fox S, Swain CP, Milla P, Long G (2006) CathCam guide wire–directed colonoscopy: first pilot study in patients with a previous incomplete colonoscopy. Endoscopy 38(3):209–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arber N, Grinshpon R, Pfeffer J, Maor J, Bar–Meir S, Rex D (2007) Proof-of-concept study of the Aer-O-Scope omnidirectional colonoscopic viewing system in ex vivo and in vivo porcine models. Endoscopy 39(5):412–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eliakim R, Yassin K, Niv Y, Metzger Y, Lachter J, Gal E, Sapoznikov B, Konikoff F, Leichtmann G, Fireman Z, Kopelman Y, Adler SN (2009) Prospective multicenter performance evaluation of the second-generation colon capsule compared with colonoscopy. Endoscopy 41(12):1026–1031PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rösch T, Adler A, Pohl H, Wettschureck E, Koch M, Wiedenmann B, Hoepffner N,MD (2008) A motor-driven single-use colonoscope controlled with a hand-held device: a feasibility study in volunteers. Gastrointest Endosc 67(7):1139–1145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Groth S, Rex DK, Rösch T, Hoepffner N (2011) High cecal intubation rates with a new computer-assisted colonoscope: a feasibility study. Am J Gastroenterol 106(6):1075–1080PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shike M, Fireman Z, Eliakim R, Segol O, Sloyer A, Cohen LB, Goldfarb-Albak S, Repici A (2008) Sightline ColonoSight system for a disposable, power-assisted, non-fiber-optic colonoscopy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 68(4):701–710PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Drew B, Ross AS, Gluck MN, Brandabur JJ, McCormick SE, Lin OS (2011) Spiral overtube–assisted colonoscopy after incomplete colonoscopy in the redundant colon. Gastrointest Endosc 73(3):515–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rey JF, Ogata H, Hosoe N, Ohtsuka K, Ogata N, Ikeda K, Aihara H, Pangtay I, Hibi T, Kudo S, Tajiri S (2010) Feasibility of stomach exploration with a guided capsule endoscope. Endoscopy 42(7):541–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keller J, Fibbe K, Volke F, Gerber J, Mosse AC, Reimann-Zawadzki M, Rabinovitz E, Layer P, Schmitt D, Andresen V, Rosien U, Swain P (2011) Inspection of the human stomach using remote-controlled capsule endoscopy: a feasibility study in healthy volunteers (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 73(1):22–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ciuti G, Donlin R, Valdastri P, Arezzo A, Menciassi A, Morino M, Dario P (2010) Preliminary validation of a novel robotic-controlled platform for capsule endoscopy. Endoscopy 42(2):148–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ciuti G, Valdastri P, Menciassi A, Dario P (2010) Robotic magnetic steering and locomotion of capsule endoscope for diagnostic and surgical endoluminal procedures. Robotica 28:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Arezzo A, Menciassi A, Valdastri P, Ciuti G, Lucarini G, Salerno M, Di Natali C, Verra M, Dario P, Morino M (2011) Experimental assessment of a novel robotically driven endoscopic capsule for colonoscopy: a comparative study. In: XVII meeting of European surgical association, Helsinki, Finland, 20–21 May 2011Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Metzger YC, Adler SM, Bar-Gil Shitrit A, Koslowsky B, Bjarnason I (2009) Comparison of a new PillCam SB2 video capsule versus the standard PillCam SB for detection of small bowel disease. Rep Med Imag 2:7–11Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Modlin IM (2000) A brief history of endoscopy. MultiMed, MilanGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Long G, Fritscher-Ravens A, Mosse CA, Mills T, Swain P (2006) The Cath-Cam: a new concept in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 64(6):997–1001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Intuitive Surgical, http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/ Accessed 29 July 2011

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Valdastri
    • 1
  • G. Ciuti
    • 2
  • A. Verbeni
    • 2
  • A. Menciassi
    • 2
  • P. Dario
    • 2
  • A. Arezzo
    • 3
  • M. Morino
    • 3
  1. 1.STORM Lab, Mechanical Engineering DepartmentVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.The BioRobotics InstituteScuola Superiore Sant’AnnaPisaItaly
  3. 3.Digestive, Colorectal and Minimal Invasive SurgeryUniversity of TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations