Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Automation of a suturing device for minimally invasive surgery

  • Review
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In minimally invasive surgery, hand suturing is categorized as a challenge in technique as well as in its duration. This calls for an easily manageable tool, permitting an all-purpose, cost-efficient, and secure viscerosynthesis. Such a tool for this field already exists: the Autosuture EndoStitch®. In a series of studies the potential for the EndoStitch to accelerate suturing has been proven. However, its ergonomics still limits its applicability. The goal of this study was twofold: propose an optimized and partially automated EndoStitch and compare the conventional EndoStitch to the optimized and partially automated EndoStitch with respect to the speed and precision of suturing.

Methods

Based on the EndoStitch, a partially automated suturing tool has been developed. With the aid of a DC motor, triggered by a button, one can suture by one-fingered handling. Using the partially automated suturing manipulator, 20 surgeons with different levels of laparoscopic experience successfully completed a continuous suture with 10 stitches using the conventional and the partially automated suture manipulator. Before that, each participant was given 1 min of instruction and 1 min for training. Absolute suturing time and stitch accuracy were measured. The quality of the automated EndoStitch with respect to manipulation was tested with the aid of a standardized questionnaire.

Results

To compare the two instruments, t tests were used for suturing accuracy and time. Of the 20 surgeons with laparoscopic experience (fewer than 5 laparoscopic interventions, n = 9; fewer than 20 laparoscopic interventions, n = 7; more than 20 laparoscopic interventions, n = 4), there was no significant difference between the two tested systems with respect to stitching accuracy. However, the suturing time was significantly shorter with the Autostitch (P = 0.01). The difference in accuracy and speed was not statistically significant considering the laparoscopic experience of the surgeons. The weight and size of the Autostitch have been criticized as well as its cable. However, the comfortable handhold, automatic needle change, and ergonomic manipulation have been rated positive.

Conclusion

Partially automated suturing in minimally invasive surgery offers advantages with respect to the speed of operation and ergonomics. Ongoing work in this field has to concentrate on minimization, implementation in robotic systems, and development of new operation methods (NOTES).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Feussner H (2003) The operating room of the future: a view from Europe. Semin Laparosc Surg 10(3):149–156

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Szabo Z, Cuschieri A (1995) Tissue approximation in endoscopic surgery. ISIS Medical Media, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bermas H, Fenoglio M, Haun W, Moore JT (2004) Laparoscopic suturing and knot tying: a comparison of standard techniques to a mechanical assist device-case report. JSLS 8:187–189

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Andrews SM, Lewis JL (1994) Laparoscopic knot substitutes. An assessment of techniques of securing sutures through the laparoscope. Endosc Surg Allied Technol 2(1):62–65

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Melzer A, Schurr MO, Lirici MM, Klemm B, Stöckel D, Buess G (1994) Future trends in endoscopic suturing. Endosc Surg Allied Technol 2(1):78–82

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Melzer A, Buess G, Trapp R, Brehl KP (1993) Surgical Stitching Instrument, International Patent WO/1993/001750, Publication Date 4 February 1993

  7. Takiguchi S, Sekimoto M, Fujiwara Y, Miyata H, Yasuda T, Doki Y, Yano M, Monden M (2005) A simple technique for performing laparoscopic purse-string suturing during circular stapling anastomosis. Surg Today 35(10):869–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Nguyen N, Mayer KL, Bold RJ, Larson M, Foster S, Ho HS, Wolfe BM (2000) Laparoscopic suturing evaluation among surgical residents. J Surg Res 93:133–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Pattaras JG, Smith GS, Landman J, Moore RG (2001) Comparison and analysis of laparoscopic intracorporeal suturing devices: preliminary results. J Endourol 15(2):187–192

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ipek T, Altinli E, Yuceyar S, Erturk S, Eyuboglu E, Akcal T (2002) Laparoscopic repair of a Morgagni-Larrey hernia: report of three cases. Surg Today 32:902–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nolan P et al (1996) Method of Employing Surgical Suturing Apparatus to Tie Knots. U.S. Patent 5480406, January 2, 1996

  12. Fukunaga M, Kidokoro A, Iba T, Sugiyama K, Fukunaga T, Nagakari K, Suda M, Yosikawa S (2004) Laparoscopic surgery for left paraduodenal hernia. J Laparosc Adv Surg Tech 14(2):111–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cao CG, MacKenzie CL, Payandeh S (1996) Task and Motion Analyses in Endoscopic Surgery. ASME IMECE Conference Proceedings: 5th Annual Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, Atlanta, Georgia, November 1996, pp 583–590

  14. Risucci D, Geiss A, Gellman L, Pinard B, Rosser J (2001) Surgeon-specific factors in the acquisition of laparoscopic surgical skills. Am J Surg 181(4):289–293

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Shennib H, Korkola SJ, Bousette N, Giaid A (2000) An automated interrupted suturing device for coronary artery bypass grafting: automated coronary anastomosis. Ann Thorac Surg 70(3):1046–1048

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim KB, Cho KR, Choi JS, Ki EH (2004) Initial experience of an automated anastomotic distal device in off-pump CABG. Heart Surg Forum 7(5):E360–E363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jernigan SR, Chanoit G, Veeramani A, Owen SB, Hilliard M, Cormier D, Laffitte B, Buckner G (2010) A laparoscopic knot-tying device for minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 37(3):626–630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kuniholm JF, Buckner GD, Nifong W, Orrico M (2005) Automated knot tying for fixation in minimally invasive, robot-assisted cardiac surgery. J Biomech Eng 127(6):1001–1008

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Brehmer B, Moll C, Makris A, Kirschner-Herrmanns R, Knüchel R, Jakse G (2008) Endosew: New device for laparoscopic running sutures. J Endourol 22(2):307–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kang H, Wen JT (2001) Robotic assistants aid surgeons during minimally invasive procedures. IEEE Eng Med Biol 20(1):94–104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Kuratorium Klinischer Forschung (KKF 1-03-06) of the Technische Universität München.

Disclosures

Tobias Göpel, Felix Härtl, Armin Schneider, Martin Buss, and Hubertus Feussner have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Automatic Control Engineering, Fakultät für Elektro- und Informationstechnik, Technische Universität München, Theresienstraße 90, 80290, Munich, Germany

    Tobias Göpel & Martin Buss

  2. Chirurgische Klinik-Abteilung für Gefäßchirurgie, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, München, Germany

    Felix Härtl

  3. Arbeitsgruppe für minimalinvasive Therapie und Intervention (MITI), Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, München, Germany

    Armin Schneider & Hubertus Feussner

Authors
  1. Tobias Göpel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Felix Härtl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Armin Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin Buss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hubertus Feussner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Göpel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Göpel, T., Härtl, F., Schneider, A. et al. Automation of a suturing device for minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 25, 2100–2104 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1532-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1532-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation