Advertisement

Total mesorectal excision using a soft and flexible robotic arm: a feasibility study in cadaver models

Abstract

Background

Sponsored by the European Commission, the FP7 STIFF-FLOP project aimed at developing a STIFFness controllable Flexible and Learn-able manipulator for surgical operations, in order to overcome the current limitations of rigid-link robotic technology. Herein, we describe the first cadaveric series of total mesorectal excision (TME) using a soft and flexible robotic arm for optic vision in a cadaver model.

Methods

TME assisted by the STIFF-FLOP robotic optics was successfully performed in two embalmed male human cadavers. The soft and flexible optic prototype consisted of two modules, each measuring 60 mm in length and 14.3 mm in maximum outer diameter. The robot was attached to a rigid shaft connected to an anthropomorphic manipulator robot arm with six degrees of freedom. The controller device was equipped with two joysticks. The cadavers (BMI 25 and 28 kg/m2) were prepared according to the Thiel embalming method. The procedure was performed using three standard laparoscopic instruments for traction and dissection, with the aid of a 30° rigid optics in the rear for documentation.

Results

Following mobilization of the left colonic flexure and division of the inferior mesenteric vessels, TME was completed down to the pelvic floor. The STIFF-FLOP robotic optic arm seemed to acquire superior angles of vision of the surgical field in the pelvis, resulting in an intact mesorectum in both cases. Completion times of the procedures were 165 and 145 min, respectively. No intraoperative complications occurred. No technical failures were registered.

Conclusions

The STIFF-FLOP soft and flexible robotic optic arm proved effective in assisting a laparoscopic TME in human cadavers, with a superior field of vision compared to the standard laparoscopic vision, especially low in the pelvis. The introduction of soft and flexible robotic devices may aid in overcoming the technical challenges of difficult laparoscopic procedures based on standard rigid instruments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

References

  1. 1.

    Lacy AM, García-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, Castells A, Taurá P, Piqué JM, Visa J (2002) Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 359:2224–2229

  2. 2.

    Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM, MRC CLASICC trial group (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726

  3. 3.

    Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group (2004) A comparison of laparoscopic ally assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050–2059

  4. 4.

    Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, Jeekel J, Kazemier G, Bonjer HJ, Haglind E, Påhlman L, Cuesta MA, Msika S, Morino M, Lacy AM, Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study Group (COLOR) (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477–484

  5. 5.

    Heald RJ, Moran BJ, Ryall RD, Sexton R, MacFarlane JK (1998) Rectal cancer: the Basingstoke experience of total mesorectal excision, 1978–1997. Arch Surg 133:894–899

  6. 6.

    Ries LA, Wingo PA, Miller DS, Howe HL, Weir HK, Rosenberg HM, Vernon SW, Cronin K, Edwards BK (2000) The annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1973–1997, with a special section on colorectal cancer. Cancer 88:2398–2424

  7. 7.

    van der Pas MH, Haglind E, Cuesta MA, Fürst A, Lacy AM, Hop WC, Bonjer HJ (2013) Colorectal cancer laparoscopic or open resection II (COLOR II) study group. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II): short-term outcomes of a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 14(3):210–218

  8. 8.

    Bonjer HJ, Deijen CL, Abis GA, Cuesta MA, van der Pas MH, de Lange-de Klerk ES, Lacy AM, Bemelman WA, Andersson J, Angenete E, Rosenberg J, Fuerst A, Haglind E, COLOR II Study Group (2015) A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer. N Engl J Med 372(14):1324–1332

  9. 9.

    Fleshman J, Branda M, Sargent DJ, Boller AM, George V, Abbas M, Peters WR Jr, Maun D, Chang G, Herline A, Fichera A, Mutch M, Wexner S, Whiteford M, Marks J, Birnbaum E, Margolin D, Larson D, Marcello P, Posner M, Read T, Monson J, Wren SM, Pisters PW, Nelson H (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection versus open resection of stage II or III rectal cancer on pathologic outcomes: the ACOSOG Z6051 randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(13):1346–1355

  10. 10.

    Stevenson AR, Solomon MJ, Lumley JW, Hewett P, Clouston AD, Gebski VJ, Davies L, Wilson K, Hague W, Simes J, ALaCaRT Investigators (2015) Effect of laparoscopic-assisted resection versus open resection on pathological outcomes in rectal cancer: the ALaCaRT randomized clinical trial. JAMA 314(13):1356–1363

  11. 11.

    Arezzo A, Passera R, Scozzari G, Verra M, Morino M (2013) Laparoscopy for rectal cancer reduces short-term mortality and morbidity: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 27:1485–1502

  12. 12.

    Arezzo A, Passera R, Scozzari G, Verra M, Morino M (2013) Laparoscopy for extraperitoneal rectal cancer reduces short-term morbidity: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. United Eur Gastroenterol J 1:32–47

  13. 13.

    Arezzo A, Passera R, Salvai A, Arolfo S, Allaix ME, Schwarzer G, Morino M (2015) Laparoscopy for rectal cancer is oncologically adequate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Surg Endosc 29:334–348

  14. 14.

    Valls FV, Bassany EE, Jiménez-Gómez LM, Chavarría JR, Carrasco MA (2014) Robotic transanal endoscopic microsurgery in benign rectal tumour. J Robotic Surg 8:277–280

  15. 15.

    Jayne D (2015) MRC/EME ROLARR trial; the first results. In: 23rd international congress of the European association for endoscopic surgery (E.A.E.S.), Bucharest June 3–June 6

  16. 16.

    Jiang A, Ataollahi A, Althoefer K, Dasgupta P, Nanayakkara T (2012) A variable stiffness joint by granular jamming. In: ASME 2012 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, pp 267–275

  17. 17.

    Jiang A, Xynogalas G, Dasgupta P, Althoefer K, Nanayakkara T (2012) Design of a variable stiffness flexible manipulator with composite granular jamming and membrane coupling. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp 2922–2927

  18. 18.

    Stilli A, Wurdemann HA, Althoefer K (2014) Shrinkable, stiffness-controllable soft manipulator based on a bio-inspired antagonistic actuation principle. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS), pp 2476–2481

  19. 19.

    Degani A, Choset H, Wolf A, Zenati MA (2006) Highly articulated robotic probe for minimally invasive surgery. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation proceedings, pp 4167–4172

  20. 20.

    Wei W, Kai X, Simaan N (2006) A compact two-armed slave manipulator for minimally invasive surgery of the throat. In: IEEE/RAS-EMBS international conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics, pp 769–774

  21. 21.

    Bajo A, Dharamsi LM, Netterville JL, Garrett CG, Simaan N (2013) Robotic-assisted micro-surgery of the throat: the trans-nasal approach. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp 232–238

  22. 22.

    Burgner J, Swaney PJ, Lathrop RA, Weaver KD, Webster RJ (2013) Debulking from within: a robotic steerable cannula for intracerebral hemorrhage evacuation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 60(9):2567–2575

  23. 23.

    Ho M, McMillan AB, Simard JM, Gullapalli R, Desai JP (2012) Toward a meso-scale SMA-actuated MRI-compatible neurosurgical robot. IEEE Trans Robot 28(1):213–222

  24. 24.

    Bajo A, Goldman RE, Long W, Fowler D, Simaan N (2012) Integration and preliminary evaluation of an insertable robotic effectors platform for single port access surgery. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pp 3381–3387

  25. 25.

    Shang J, Noonan DP, Payne C, Clark J, Sodergren MH, Darzi A, Yang GZ (2011) An articulated universal joint based flexible access robot for minimally invasive surgery. In: IEEE international conference robotics and automation (ICRA), pp 1147–1152

  26. 26.

    Bardaro SJ, Swanstrom LL (2006) Develeopment of advanced endoscopes for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Minim Invasive Ther 15(6):378–383

  27. 27.

    Phee SJ, Ho KY, Lomanto D, Low SC, Huynh VA, Kencana AP et al (2010) Natural orifice transgastric endoscopic wedge hepatic resection in an experimental model using an intuitively controlled master and slave translumenal endoscopic robot (MASTER). Surg Endoscopy 24:2293–2298

  28. 28.

    Loeve A, Breedveld P, Dankelman J (2010). Scopes too flexible…and too stiff. Pulse, IEEE 1(3):26–41

  29. 29.

    Mahvash M, Dupont PE (2011) Stiffness control of surgical continuum manipulators. IEEE Trans Robot 27(2):334–345

  30. 30.

    Goldman RE, Bajo A, Simaan N (2014) Compliant motion control for multisegment continuum robots with actuation force sensing. IEEE Trans Robot 30(4):890–902

  31. 31.

    Fras J, Czarnowski J, Macias M, Glowka J, Cianchetti M, Menciassi A (2015) New STIFF-FLOP module construction idea for improved actuation and sensing. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2015 Seattle

  32. 32.

    Małota Z, Nawrat Z, Sadowski W (2014) Minimally invasive surgery simulation. Eng Biomater 126(17):2–11

  33. 33.

    Miller K, Clavel R (1992) The lagrange-based model of delta-4 robot dynamics. Robotersysteme 8:49–54

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme under Grant Agreement 287728 in the framework of EU Project STIFF-FLOP. The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. We would like to acknowledge Prof. Andreas Melzer and Sir Alfred Cuschieri for their hospitality in Dundee and their commendable suggestions. We would also like to acknowledge Helen McLeod for her support during test preparation and surgical procedures.

Author information

Correspondence to Alberto Arezzo.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Alberto Arezzo, Yoav Mintz, Marco Ettore Allaix, Giada Gerboni, Margherita Brancadoro, Matteo Cianchetti, Arianna Menciassi, Helge Wurdemann, Yohan Noh, Jan Fras, Jakob Glowka, Zbigniew Nawrat, Gavin Cassidy, Rich Walker, Simone Arolfo, Marco Bonino, Mario Morino, and Kaspar Althoefer have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Ethical approval

The study was carried out to appropriate ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required for this type of study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

The video shows the first cadaveric series of Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) using a soft and flexible robotic arm for optic vision in a cadaver model. (MP4 1035811 kb)

Video 1

The video shows the first cadaveric series of Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) using a soft and flexible robotic arm for optic vision in a cadaver model. (MP4 1035811 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arezzo, A., Mintz, Y., Allaix, M.E. et al. Total mesorectal excision using a soft and flexible robotic arm: a feasibility study in cadaver models. Surg Endosc 31, 264–273 (2017) doi:10.1007/s00464-016-4967-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Soft
  • Flexible
  • Robotic surgery
  • Total mesorectal excision