PID-Controlled Laparoscopic Appendectomy Device

  • Abdul Rahman DabbourEmail author
  • Asif Sabanovic
  • Meltem Elitaş
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 59)


Minimally invasive surgery is a surgical method, which boasts many advantages over regular surgeries, such as decreasing the risks involved by minimizing the incision area, thus reducing the risk of infection compared to invasive surgeries. Laparoscopic surgery tools built for this purpose are mostly singular in function, which means that it requires multiple incisions for multiple tools or changing tools using the same incision during the operation. This project attempts to motorize an affordable multifunctional mechanical surgical tool prototype. The tool is designed using SolidWorks and controlled using MATLAB/Simulink. Three motors are used to motorize the multifunctional laparoscopic tool and their control architectures made it more precise and more accurate for noninvasive operations. It is shown that with some physical modifications and simple PID control, the multifunctional laparoscopy tool can be controlled and modified for the robotic-assisted surgery. Possible future improvements include attachment of the cameras and wireless control for the tele-operational applications.


Noninvasive Surgery Robot-assisted Surgery Endobag Step Response Characteristics Endoloop 
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.


  1. 1.
    Clarke, H.C.: Laparoscopy—new instruments for suturing and ligation. Fertil. Steril. 23(4), 274–277 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hunter, P.: The cutting edge, a synergy of modern surgical techniques and science improves patient survival and recovery. EMBO Rep. 8(11), 999–1002 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alexander, J.I., Hull, M.G.: Abdominal pain after laparoscopy: the value of a gas drain. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 94(3), 267–269 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mirhashemi, R., Harlow, B.L., Ginsburg, E.S., Signorello, L.B., Berkowitz, R., Feldman, S.: Predicting risk of complications with gynecologic laparoscopic surgery. Obstet. Gynecol. 92(3), 327–331 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jimenez-Rodríguez, R.M., Segura-Sampedro, J.J.: Laparoscopic approach in gastrointestinal emergencies. World J. Gastroenterol. 22(9), 2701 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhandarkar, D., Mittal, G., Shah, R., Katara, A., Udwadia, T.E.: Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy: how I do it? J. Minimal Access Surg. 7(1), 17–23 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van der Westebring Putten, E.P., Goossens, R.H., Jakimowicz, J.J., Dankelman, J.: Haptics in minimally invasive surgery – a review. Minim. Invasive Ther. 17(1), 3–16 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gallagher, A.G., McClure, N., McGuigan, J., Ritchie, K., Sheehy, N.P.: An ergonomic analysis of the fulcrum effect in the acquisition of endoscopic skills. Endoscopy 1(7), 617–620 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosser, J.C., Rosser, L.E., Savalgi, R.S.: Skill acquisition and assessment for laparoscopic surgery. Arch. Surg. 132, 200–204 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taşkın, E., Kurt, E., Elitaş, M., Tansuğ, T.: Çok fonksiyonlu apendektomi cihazı, Otomatik Kontrol Ulusal Toplantısı (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frecker, M.I., Schadler, J., Haluck, R.S., Culkar, K., Dziedzic, R.: Laparoscopic multifunctional instruments: design and testing of initial prototypes. JSLS 9, 105–112 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    da Vinci Surgery. Accessed 10 July 2017
  13. 13.
    Sallinen, V., Mentula, P.: Laparoscopic appendectomy. Duodecim 133(7), 660–666 (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Budyans, R.G., Nisbett, J.K., et al.: Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design, vol. 9. McGraw-Hill, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Podsędkowski, L.R., Moll, J., Moll, M., Frącczak, L.: Are the surgeon’s movements repeatable? An analysis of the feasibility and expediency of implementing support procedures guiding the surgical tools and increasing motion accuracy during the performance of stereotypical movements by the surgeon. Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska=Pol. J. Cardio-Thorac. surg. 11(1), 90 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Riviere, C.N., Rader, R.S., Khosla, P.K.: Characteristics of hand motion of eye surgeons. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology society, vol. 4, pp. 1690–1693. IEEE (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdul Rahman Dabbour
    • 1
    Email author
  • Asif Sabanovic
    • 1
  • Meltem Elitaş
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and Natural SciencesSabancı UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations