Third Arm Manipulation for Surgical Applications: An Experimental Study

  • E. AbdiEmail author
  • M. Bouri
  • S. Himidan
  • E. Burdet
  • H. Bleuler
Conference paper
Part of the Mechanisms and Machine Science book series (Mechan. Machine Science, volume 38)


Surgeons need assistance in most types of surgery. This necessary teamwork is costly and can be a source of error and inefficiency due to communication problems such as a lack of coherence among the surgeon’s and assistants’ actions. A robotic arm under the surgeon’s full control improves his/her dexterity and simplifies the teamwork. While the hardware of such an arm is readily available, the most efficient way to use it remains an open question. This chapter presents our experimental setup and paradigm for studying the control of a third arm for the surgeon. This study mainly focuses on the embodiment mechanism of the third arm, the intuitiveness of the control strategy and the appropriate level of complexity of the tasks.


Third arm Telemanipulator Embodiment Virtual reality Robotic surgery 



E. Burdet was funded in part by the EU-H2020 ICT-644727 COGIMON grant.


  1. 1.
    Nurok M, Sundt TM, Frankel A (2011) Teamwork and communication in the operating room: relationship to discrete outcomes and research challenges. Anesthesiol Clin 29(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clark A (2007) Re-inventing ourselves: the plasticity of embodiment, sensing, and mind. J Med Philos 32(3):263–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Botvinick M, Cohen J (1998) Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature 391(6669):756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sengul A, van Michiel E, Rognini G, Aspell JE, Bleuler H, Blanke O (2012) Extending the body to virtual tools using a robotic surgical interface: evidence from the crossmodal congruency task. PLoS ONE 7(12)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shokur SI, Peter L, Bleuler H, Miguel N (2011) Social interaction probed by reaching to face images: rhesus monkeys consider a textured monkey avatar as a conspecific. In: Society for neuroscience. Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Llorens-Bonilla B, Parietti F, Asada HH (2012) Demonstration-based control of supernumerary robotic limbs. In: 2012 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rane A et al (2007) Initial experience with the endoassist (R) camera holding robot in laparoscopic urological surgery. Eur Urol Suppl 6(2):186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Unger SW, Unger HM, Bass RT (1994) AESOP robotic arm. Surg Endosc 8(9):1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Polet R, Donnez J (2004) Gynecologic laparoscopic surgery with a palm-controlled laparoscope holder. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparoscopists 11(1):73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dagan J, Bat L (1982) Endoassist, a mechanical device to support an endoscope. Gastrointest Endosc 28(2):97–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bozovic V (2008) Medical robotics, vol 1. I-Tech Education and Publishing, p 536Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kavoussi LR, Moore RG (1995) Comparison of robotic versus human laparoscopic camera control 154:2134. J Urol (1997), 158(4):1530–1530Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wagner AA et al (2006) Comparison of surgical performance during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy of two robotic camera holders, EndoAssist and AESOP: a pilot study. Urology 68(1):70–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Polet R, Donnez J (2008) Using a laparoscope manipulator (LAPMAN) in laparoscopic gynecological surgery. Surg Technol Int 17:187–191Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kwon DS, Ko SY, Kim J (2008) Intelligent laparoscopic assistant robot through surgery task model: how to give intelligence to medical robots. In: Bozovic V (ed) Medical robotics, I-Tech Education and Publishing. ISBN: 978-3-902613-18-9Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Long JA et al (2007) Development of miniaturized light endoscope-holder robot for laparoscopic surgery. J Endourol 21(8):911–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Voros S et al (2010) ViKY robotic scope holder: initial clinical experience and preliminary results using instrument tracking. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 15(6):879–886MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maselli A, Slater M (2013) The building blocks of the full body ownership illusion. Frontiers Human Neurosci 7:83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mettler L, Ibrahim M, Jonat W (1998) One year of experience working with the aid of a robotic assistant (the voice-controlled optic holder AESOP) in gynaecological endoscopic surgery. Hum Reprod 13(10):2748–2750CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Abdi
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Bouri
    • 1
  • S. Himidan
    • 2
  • E. Burdet
    • 3
  • H. Bleuler
    • 1
  1. 1.École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)LausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Imperial College of ScienceTechnology and MedicineLondonUK

Personalised recommendations