Magnetic air capsule robotic system: proof of concept of a novel approach for painless colonoscopy
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsColonoscopy Colorectal cancer Robotic endoscopy Wireless capsule endoscopy Advanced colonoscopy Self-propelling colonoscopy
The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Christian Graf and Karl Storz GmbH for providing the CCD module and related support. Special thanks go to Nicodemo Funaro and the staff of the BioRobotics Institute mechanical workshop for manufacturing the prototypes. The authors are also grateful to Dr. Silvia Burchielli and the staff of the Experimental Surgery Center of San Piero a Grado (Pisa) for their support during in vivo testing. Special thanks to Byron Smith for English proof-reading. Research support for this study was provided by the European Commission within the framework of ARAKNES FP7 European project 224565 and VECTOR FP6 European project 033970.
Authors P. Valdastri, G. Ciuti, A. Verbeni, A. Menciassi, P. Dario, A. Arezzo, and M. Morino have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 1.World Health Organization, www.who.int/gho/ncd/mortality_morbidity/cancer_text. Accessed 29 July 2011
- 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.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
- 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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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.Modlin IM (2000) A brief history of endoscopy. MultiMed, MilanGoogle Scholar
- 30.Intuitive Surgical, http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/ Accessed 29 July 2011