A Compact, Simple, and Robust Teleoperated Robotic Surgery System



The utility of current commercial teleoperated robotic surgery systems is limited by their high cost, large size, and time-consuming setup procedures. We have developed a prototype system which aims to overcome these obstacles by being much smaller, simpler, and easier to set up and operate, while providing equivalent functionality and performance for executing surgical procedures. The prototype system is modular and each component manipulator is approximately 2.5 kg or less, so that they system is easily portable and each manipulator can be individually positioned and fixed in place by hand to a rigid frame above the operating table. All system components and materials are autoclaveable and immersible in fluids, so that each manipulator can be sterilized and stored by the standard operating procedures used for any other surgical instrument, and no sterile draping is required. The system is described and results of untrained user trials performing standard laparoscopic surgery skill tasks are given.


Surgical Instrument Haptic Device Instrument Manipulator Video Feedback Precision Cutting 
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.



We are grateful for the assistance of Alpes Instruments SA of Meylan, France for the fabrication of the instrument manipulators, and to EndoControl SA of Grenoble, France, for supplying the endoscope manipulator used in the system. Research support has been provided by the NIH under grant #5R21EB006073, “Development of Compact Teleoperated Robotic Minimally Invasive Surgery” and by the University of Hawaii-Manoa College of Engineering and Department of Mechanical Engineering.


  1. 1.
    Aiono, S., Gilbert, J.M., Soin, B., Finlay, P.A., Gordon, A.: Controlled trial of the introduction of a robotic camera assistant (EndoAssist) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg. Endosc. 16(9), 1267–1270 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berkelman, P., Cinquin, P., Boidard, E., Troccaz, J., Letoublon, C., Long, J.A.: Development and testing of a compact endoscope manipulator for minimally invasive surgery. Comput. Aided Surg. 10(1), 1–13 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Franzino, R.J.: The Laprotek surgical system and the next generation of robotics. Surg. clin. North Am. 83(6), 1317–1320 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Geis, W.P., Kim, H.C., Brennan, E.J., Jr., McAfee, P.C., Wang, Y.: Robotic arm enhancement to accommodate improved efficiency and decreased resource utilization in complex minimally invasive surgical procedures. In: Medicine Meets Virtual Reality: Health Care in the Information Age, pp. 471–481. San Diego (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guthart, G.S., Salisbury, J.K.: The Intuitive (TM) telesurgery system: Overview and application. In: International Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 618–621. IEEE, San Francisco (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Long, J.A., Cinquin, P., Troccaz, J., Voros, S., Berkelman, P., Descotes, J.L., Letoublon, C., Rambeaud, J.J.: Development of miniaturized light endoscope-holder robot for laparoscopic surgery. J. Endourol. 21(8), 911–914 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lum, M.: Quantitative performance assessment of surgical robot systems: Telerobotic FLS. Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lum, M., Trimble, D., Rosen, J., Fodero, K., II, King, H., Sankaranarayanan, G., Dosher, J., Leuschke, R., Martin-Anderson, B., Sinanan, M.N., Hannaford, B.: Multidisciplinary approach for developing a new minimally invasive surgical robotic system. In: International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics. IEEE-RAS/EMBS, Pisa (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ma, J., Berkelman, P.: Control software design of a compact laparoscopic surgical robot system. In: International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 2345–2350. IEEE/RSJ, Beijing (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ma, J., Berkelman, P.: Task evaluations of a compact laparoscopic surgical robot system. In: International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 398–403. IEEE/RSJ, San Diego (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Massie, T.H., Salisbury, J.K.: The phantom haptic interface: A device for probing virtual objects. In: Dynamic Systems and Control, pp. 295–299. ASME, Chicago (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meer, F.V., Giraud, A., Esteve, D., Dollat, X.: A disposable plastic compact wrist for smart minimally invasive surgical tools. In: International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 919–924. IEEE/RSJ, Alberta (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reichenspurner, H., Demaino, R., Mack, M., Boehm, D., Gulbins, H., Detter, C., Meiser, B., Ellgas, R., Reichart, B.: Use of the voice controlled and computer-assisted surgical system zeus for endoscopic coronary artery surgery bypass grafting. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 118, 11–16 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Hawaii-ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations