Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 322–332 | Cite as

A reel mechanism-based robotic colonoscope with high safety and maneuverability

  • Dongkyu Lee
  • Seonggun Joe
  • Hyeongseok Kang
  • Taeyoung An
  • Byungkyu KimEmail author
Dynamic Manuscript
  • 161 Downloads

Abstract

Background

At present, the colonoscopy is the most common method of screening for colorectal cancer. However, endoscopists still encounter difficulties with intubation, primarily due to the structural diversity (e.g., path, shape, and size) and viscoelasticity of the colon. Therefore, well-trained, skillful operators are required to overcome these factors and operate colonoscopes without harming patients.

Objectives

In our previous work, we presented a reel mechanism-based robotic colonoscope designed to mitigate the difficulties of conventional colonoscopies. Although we reported excellent mobile performance with respect to the robot, we did not provide an in-depth discussion concerning patient safety. Therefore, in this article, we propose a method of improving robot safety, and this is verified by investigating the static and dynamic forces acting on the colon. In addition, the maneuverability and safety of the robot in the in vitro condition are evaluated.

Methods

The safety solution is provided by covering the robot’s legs with silicone. To evaluate the results, the reaction force according to leg deformation is measured. Then, the force transmitted to the colon is also measured when the robot moves through various environments. Finally, a mobility test on an excised porcine colon is performed to simultaneously verify the robot’s maneuverability and safety.

Results

We verify that the static and dynamic force acting on the colon is less than the burst force of a human colon. In addition, the maneuverability of the robotic colonoscope shows reliable locomotion performance even with the soft material covering the legs; it has forward velocities of 9.552 ± 1.940 mm/s on a flat path.

Conclusion

Owing to the reliable locomotion mechanism with the safety-securing silicone, the robot achieves high and reliable maneuverability without any scratches or perforations to the porcine colon.

Keywords

Microrobot Robotic colonoscope Reel mechanism High maneuverability High safety Locomotion test 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Dongkyu Lee, Seonggun Joe, Hyoeng-Seok Kang, Taeyoung An, and Byungkyu Kim declare no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (WMV 32841 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group (2010) United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2007 incidence and mortality web-based report. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer Institute, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nakao SK, Fassler S, Sucandy I, Kim S, Zebley DM (2013) Colorectal cancer following negative colonoscopy: is 5-year screening the correct interval to recommend? Surg Endosc 27(3):768–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moore JS, Aulet TH (2017) Colorectal cancer screening. Surg Clin 97(3):487–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dafnis G (2006) A novel technique for endoscopic snare polypectomy using a duodenoscope in combination with a colonoscope for the inaccessible colonic polyp. Endoscopy 38(03):279–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Witte TN, Enns R (2007) The difficult colonoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol 21(8):487–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Waye JD, Rex DK, Williams CB (eds) (2008) Colonoscopy: principles and practice. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yoshida N et al (2009) Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors: technical difficulties and rate of perforation. Endoscopy 41(09):758–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bowles CJA, Leicester R, Romaya C, Swarbrick E, Williams CB, Epstein O (2004) A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut 53(2):277–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dario P, Mosse CA (2003) Review of locomotion techniques for robotic colonoscopy. In: Proceedings of the ICRA’03. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2003. 1:1086–1091Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ciuti G et al (2016) Frontiers of robotic endoscopic capsules: a review. J Microbio Robot 11(1–4):1–18Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bernth JE, Arezzo A, Liu H (2017) A novel robotic meshworm with segment-bending anchoring for colonoscopy. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 2(3):1718–1724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Alcaide JO, Pearson L, Rentschler ME (2017) Design, modeling and control of a SMA-actuated biomimetic robot with novel functional skin. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2017, pp 4338–4345Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heung H, Chiu PW, Li Z (2016) Design and prototyping of a soft earthworm-like robot targeted for GI tract inspection. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), 2016, pp 497–502Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang K, Ma J, Wang F, Wang Z, Yan G, Zhou Y (2017) Full-driving soft robotic colonoscope in compliant colon tissue. J Med Eng Technol 41(8):662–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim B, Lim HY, Park JH, Park JO (2006) Inchworm-like colonoscopic robot with hollow body and steering device. JSME Int J C-Mech Sy 49(1):205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Poon CC, Leung B, Chan CK, Lau JY, Chiu PW (2016) Design of wormlike automated robotic endoscope: dynamic interaction between endoscopic balloon and surrounding tissues. Surg Endosc 30(2):772–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang K, Ge Y, Jin X (2013) A micro soft robot using inner air transferring for colonoscopy. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), 2013, pp 1556–1561Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lim J, Park H, An J, Hong YS, Kim B, Yi BJ (2008) One pneumatic line based inchworm-like micro robot for half-inch pipe inspection. Mechatronics 18(7):315–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim B et al (2003) Functional colonoscope robot system. In: Proceedings of the ICRA’03. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2003, pp 1092–1097Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Trovato G et al (2010) Development of a colon endoscope robot that adjusts its locomotion through the use of reinforcement learning. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 5(4):317–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dehghani H, Welch CR, Pourghodrat A, Nelson CA, Oleynikov D, Dasgupta P, Terry BS (2017) Design and preliminary evaluation of a self-steering, pneumatically driven colonoscopy robot. J Med Eng Technol 41(3):223–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sliker LJ, Kern MD, Schoen JA, Rentschler ME (2012) Surgical evaluation of a novel tethered robotic capsule endoscope using micro-patterned treads. Surg Endosc 26(10):2862–2869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee D, Joe S, Choi J, Lee BI, Kim B (2016) An elastic caterpillar-based self-propelled robotic colonoscope with high safety and mobility. Mechatronics 39:54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Patel N, Darzi A, Teare J (2015) The endoscopy evolution: ‘the superscope era’. Frontline Gastroenterol 6(2):101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shike M et al (2008) Sightline ColonoSight system for a disposable, power-assisted, non-fiber-optic colonoscopy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 68(4):701–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee D, Joe S, Jung JH, Kim JU, Kim B (2017) A simple and reliable reel mechanism-based robotic colonoscope for high mobility. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part C.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406217723941 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jeong U, In H, Lee H, Kang BB, Cho KJ (2015) Investigation on the control strategy of soft wearable robotic hand with slack enabling tendon actuator. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2015, pp 5004–5009Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sadahiro S, Ohmura T, Yamada Y, Saito T, Taki Y (1992) Analysis of length and surface area of each segment of the large intestine according to age, sex and physique. Surg Radiol Anat 14(3):251–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nisbett J, Budynas R (2008) Shingley’s mechanical engineering design. Mc- Graw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Grijalba YL, Ramirez AJ (2015) Comparison of double torsion springs with anticorrosive coating obtained from manual production against those obtained from an automated forming prototype. In: 15th congreso nacional de ingenieria electromecanica y de sistemas (CNIES 2015) pp 19–23Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Meshram PM, Kanojiya RG (2012) Tuning of PID controller using Ziegler-Nichols method for speed control of DC motor. In: International Conference on Advances in Engineering, Science and Management (ICAESM), 2012, pp 117–122Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Watters DA, Smith AN, Eastwood MA, Anderson KC, Elton RA, Mugerwa JW (1985) Mechanical properties of the colon: comparison of the features of the African and European colon in vitro. Gut 26:384–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Amador GJ, Matherne M, Mathews M, Gorb SN, Hu DL (2017) Honey bee hairs and pollenkitt are essential for pollen capture and removal. Bioinspir Biomim 12(2):026015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Egorov VI, Schastlivtsev IV, Prut EV, Baranov AO, Turusov RA (2002) Mechanical properties of the human gastrointestinal tract. J Biomech 35(10):1417–1425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Accoto D et al (2001) Measurements of the frictional properties of the gastrointestinal tract. In: World Tribology Congress Vol 3, p 7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Aerospace and Mechanical EngineeringKorea Aerospace UniversityGoyang-siRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations