Advertisement

Future Directions in Robotic Surgery

Chapter

Abstract

Robotic surgery has become an established part of clinical surgery. The advantages of using a robot have been enumerated by many clinicians, however the true potential has yet to be realized. In addition, the systems available today are extraordinarily simple and cumbersome relative to the more sophisticated robotic systems used in other industries. However more important is the fact that the fundamental principles underlying robotics have yet to be exploited, such as systems integration, feedback control, automatic performance, simulation and rehearsal and integration into healthcare enterprise. By looking at robotic implementation in other industries, and exploring the new robotic technologies in the laboratories, it is possible to speculate on the future directions which would be possible in surgical robotics.

Keywords

Robotic System High Intensity Focus Ultrasound Scrub Nurse Voice Command High Intensity Focus Ultrasound 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Garcia, P., Rosen, J., Kapoor, C., Noakes, M., Elbert, G., Treat, M., Ganous, T., Hanson, M., Manak, J., Hasser, C., Rohler, D., Satava, R.: Trauma pod: a semi-automated telerobotic surgical system. Int. J. Med. Robot. 5(2), 136–146 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosen, J., Brown, J.D., Chang, L., Sinanan, M., Hannaford, B.: Generalized approach for modeling minimally invasive surgery as a stochastic process using a discrete markov model. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 53(3), 399–413 (2006) [JP 9]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mutter, D., Dallemagne, B., Bailey, C., Soler, L., Marescaux, J.: 3-D virtual reality and selective vascular control for laparoscopic left hepatic lobectomy. Surg. Endos. 23, 432–435 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kahol, K., Satava, R.M., Ferrara, J., Smith, M.L.: Effect of short-term pretrial practice on surgical proficiency in simulated environments: a randomized trial of the “preoperative warm-up” effect. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 208(2), 255–268 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De, S., Rosen, J., Dagan, A.,Swanson, P., Sinanan, M.,Hannaford, B.: Assessment of tissue damage due to mechanical stresses. Int. J. Robot. Res. 26(11–12), 1159–1171 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vaezy, S., Martin, R., Keilman, G., Kaczkowski, P., Chi, E., Yazaji, E., Caps, M., Poliachik, S., Carter, S., Sharar, S., Cornejo, C., Crum, L.: Control of splenic bleeding by using high intensity ultrasound. J. Trauma. 47(3), 521–525 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knorz, M.C., Jendritza, B.: Topographically-guided laser in situ keratomileusis to treat corneal irregularities. Ophthalmology 107(6), 1138–1143 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Joseph J.V,., Oleynikov, D., Rentschler, M., Dumpert, J., Patel, H.R.: Microrobot assisted laparoscopic urological surgery in a canine model. J. Urol. 180(5), 2202–2205 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Iddan, G., Meron, G., Glukhovsky, A., Swain, P.: Wireless capsule endoscopy. Nature. 405(6785), 417 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Washington Medical CenterSeattleUSA
  2. 2.US Army Medical Research and Material CommandFrederickUSA

Personalised recommendations