Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 42, Issue 9, pp 1942–1951 | Cite as

Design, Development and Evaluation of an Inflatable Retractor for Atraumatic Retraction in Laparoscopic Colectomy

  • Conor O’SheaEmail author
  • Denis Kelliher
  • Emmet Andrews
  • Mícheál O’Ríordáin
  • Michael O’Shea
  • Timothy Power
  • Pádraig Cantillon-Murphy


Laparoscopic colectomy is the gold standard in the treatment of malignant tumours arising in the mucosa of the colon wall. The procedure is performed under general endotracheal anaesthesia and involves establishing a pneumoperitoneum with the patient in the Trendelenburg position. However this position can cause anaesthetic difficulties due to excess blood flow to the head and neck, increased pressure on the diaphragm and increased venous pressure. In the absence of steep head-down positioning, the bowels fall or “spill” into the operating field, obstructing the surgical space. The primary goal of this work is to design an atraumatic laparoscopic retractor to minimise the Trendelenburg position whilst effectively retracting the bowels from the operating field. This work details the design, evaluation and optimisation of a novel, hand held, inflatable, laparoscopic retractor, through physical experimentation, computer simulation, and pre-clinical animal investigation. The optimised design for the inflatable retractor performs in line with simulated expectations, and was successfully tested for safety and technical feasibility in vivo in a porcine model, where the bowels were effectively removed from the operating space whilst the model remained in the supine position. These initial results represent a promising approach for the mitigation of the Trendelenburg position, whilst effectively retracting the bowels during laparoscopic colectomy, using this atraumatic, inflatable retractor.


Laparoscopic colectomy Laparoscopic instruments Inflatable retractor Bowel retraction Atraumatic retractor 



The authors thank the Biological Services Unit and UCC Department of Physiology for facilitating the pre-clinical animal investigation, in particular Mr. Kieran McManamon, and Dr. Therese Ruane-O’Hora.


The authors of this paper have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 21188 kb)


  1. 1.
    Ahad, S., and E. J. Figueredo. Laparoscopic colectomy. Medscape Gen. Med. 9:37, 2007.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ballinger, A. B., and C. Anggiansah. Colorectal cancer. BMJ 335:715–718, 2007.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bishoff, J. T., M. E. Allaf, W. Kirkels, R. G. Moore, L. R. Kavoussi, and F. Schroder. Laparoscopic bowel injury: incidence and clinical presentation. J. Urol. 161:887–890, 1999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brooks, P. G. New laparoscopic retractors. J. Am. Assoc. Gynecol. Laparosc. 1:60–61, 1993.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cartmill, J. A., A. J. Shakeshaft, W. R. Walsh, and C. J. Martin. High pressures are generated at the tip of laparoscopic graspers. ANZ J. Surg. 69:127–130, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chang, G. J. Laparoscopic treatment of colorectal neoplasia. Curr. Treat. Options Gastroenterol. 9:256–264, 2006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Visser, H., E. A. M. Heijnsdijk, J. L. Herder, and P. V. Pistecky. Forces and displacements in colon surgery. Surg. Endosc. 16:1426–1430, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Den Boer, K. T., J. L. Herder, W. Sjoerdsma, D. W. Meijer, D. J. Gouma, and H. G. Stassen. Sensitivity of laparoscopic dissectors. What can you feel? Surg. Endosc. 13:869–873, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heijnsdijk, E. A. M., J. Dankelman, and D. J. Gouma. Effectiveness of grasping and duration of clamping using laparoscopic graspers. Surg. Endosc. 16:1329–1331, 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kalmar, A. F., L. Foubert, J. F. A. Hendrickx, A. Mottrie, A. Absalom, E. P. Mortier, and M. M. R. F. Struys. Influence of steep Trendelenburg position and CO2 pneumoperitoneum on cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and respiratory homeostasis during robotic prostatectomy. Br. J. Anaesth. 104:433–439, 2010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kienle, P., J. Weitz, M. Koch, and M. W. Bu. Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Color. Dis. 8:33–36, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ladwa, N., M. S. Sajid, N. K. Pankhania, P. Sains, and M. K. Baig. Retraction techniques in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a literature-based review. Colorectal Dis. 15:936–943, 2013.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee, S. W. Laparoscopic procedures for colon and rectal cancer surgery. Clin. Colon Rectal Surg. 22:218–224, 2009.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leonardi, M. J., M. L. McGory, and C. Y. Ko. Quality of care issues in colorectal cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 13:6897–6902, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Milsom, J. W., B. Böhm, and K. Nakajima. Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Springer, 2006. At
  16. 16.
    Milsom, J. W., B. Böhm, K. A. Hammerhofer, V. Fazio, E. Steiger, and P. Elson. A prospective, randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus conventional techniques in colorectal cancer surgery: a preliminary report. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 187:46–54, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ota, D. M. Laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: a favorable opinion. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2:3–5, 1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rist, M., T. M. Hemmerling, R. Rauh, E. Siebzehnrübl, and K. E. Jacobi. Influence of pneumoperitoneum and patient positioning on preload and splanchnic blood volume in laparoscopic surgery of the lower abdomen. J. Clin. Anesth. 13:244–249, 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Siegel, R., D. Naishadham, and A. Jemal. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 62:10–29, 2012.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sjoerdsma, W., J. L. Herder, M. J. Horward, A. Jansen, J. J. G. Bannenberg, and C. A. Grimbergen. Force transmission of laparoscopic grasping instruments. Minim. Invasive Ther. Allied Technol. 6:274–278, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilcox, S., and L. D. Vandam. Alas, poor Trendelenburg and his position! A critique of its uses and effectiveness. Anesth. Analg. 67:574–578, 1988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Conor O’Shea
    • 1
    Email author
  • Denis Kelliher
    • 1
  • Emmet Andrews
    • 2
    • 3
  • Mícheál O’Ríordáin
    • 4
  • Michael O’Shea
    • 1
  • Timothy Power
    • 1
  • Pádraig Cantillon-Murphy
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Engineering, Electrical and Electronic EngineeringUniversity College CorkCorkIreland
  2. 2.Department of Colorectal SurgeryCork University HospitalCorkIreland
  3. 3.School of MedicineUniversity College CorkCorkIreland
  4. 4.Department of Colorectal SurgeryMercy University HospitalCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations