Design and Evaluation of an Omnidirectional Wheel-Driven Endoscope-Assisted Robotic System Based on Motion Capture Control

BACKGROUND

In endoscopic surgery, surgeons collaborate with assistants to manipulate the endoscope and instruments, making it impossible to perform the surgery independently.

METHODS

We propose an endoscopic assistive robot based on motion capture control, enabling surgeons to control the endoscope with one hand. The system uses cameras at the master end to capture real-time motion information from the marker accessory, determining the surgeon's intent. It then controls the robot at the slave end to simulate surgical delivery actions, enabling precise endoscopic positioning through master-slave mapping. The omnidirectional wheel design addresses coupling issues of traditional friction wheels, significantly improving control accuracy.

RESULTS

Testing demonstrated a maximum delivery error of 3.99% and 45.77% improvement in rotational precision. The system received positive feedback in both simulated and animal trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The system empowers surgeons to perform endoscopic procedures independently, establishing a foundation for advancing diagnosis and treatment of gastric diseases.

User interfaces for actuated scope maneuvering in surgical systems: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

A variety of human computer interfaces are used by robotic surgical systems to control and actuate camera scopes during minimally invasive surgery. The purpose of this review is to examine the different user interfaces used in both commercial systems and research prototypes.

METHODS

A comprehensive scoping review of scientific literature was conducted using PubMed and IEEE Xplore databases to identify user interfaces used in commercial products and research prototypes of robotic surgical systems and robotic scope holders. Papers related to actuated scopes with human-computer interfaces were included. Several aspects of user interfaces for scope manipulation in commercial and research systems were reviewed.

RESULTS

Scope assistance was classified into robotic surgical systems (for multiple port, single port, and natural orifice) and robotic scope holders (for rigid, articulated, and flexible endoscopes). Benefits and drawbacks of control by different user interfaces such as foot, hand, voice, head, eye, and tool tracking were outlined. In the review, it was observed that hand control, with its familiarity and intuitiveness, is the most used interface in commercially available systems. Control by foot, head tracking, and tool tracking are increasingly used to address limitations, such as interruptions to surgical workflow, caused by using a hand interface.

CONCLUSION

Integrating a combination of different user interfaces for scope manipulation may provide maximum benefit for the surgeons. However, smooth transition between interfaces might pose a challenge while combining controls.

Robotic, self-propelled, self-steerable, and disposable colonoscopes: Reality or pipe dream? A state of the art review

Robotic colonoscopes could potentially provide a comfortable, less painful and safer alternative to standard colonoscopy. Recent exciting developments in this field are pushing the boundaries to what is possible in the future. This article provides a comprehensive review of the current work in robotic colonoscopes including self-propelled, steerable and disposable endoscopes that could be alternatives to standard colonoscopy. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these systems currently in development and highlight the technical readiness of each system to help the reader understand where and when such systems may be available for routine clinical use and get an idea of where and in which situation they can best be deployed.

A colonoscopic overtube system that creates a 'therapeutic zone' and permits retraction facilitates endoscopic submucosal dissection, was associated with fewer deep bowel wall injuries and instrument exchanges, and required less lifting solution vs classic endoscopic submucosal dissection in an ex vivo bovine model

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the 'gold standard' for large flat polyps; nevertheless, the rate of adoption in the USA is low. In ESD, the polyp is 'surgically' detached with a needle knife after a submucosal lift; gravity and the dissection cap are used for retraction. ESD would be easier if active retraction were possible. In an ex vivo bovine colon model, this study assessed an overtube system (Boston Scientific ORISE Tissue Retraction System, TRS) that permits retraction and creates 'an operative field' for removal of rectal/sigmoid lesions.

METHOD

Classic ESD (C-ESD) was compared to TRS-facilitated ESD (TRS-ESD). Cleaned/preserved bovine large bowel was used, and two 2-cm 'lesions'/colon were branded onto the mucosal surface 25 and 35 cm from the anus. Submucosal saline lifts were made using a thin catheter and a standard needle knife. We tracked case length, number of instrument exchanges (to refresh lift), the volume of lift solution, the fullness of resection, and deep muscle injuries.

RESULTS

Fifty ESDs were carried out in 25 colons (25 C-ESD, 25 TRS-ESD). Complete resections were noted in all cases. The TRS method required fewer instrument exchanges (median 5) vs C-ESD (median 9, p < 0.0001) and less lift solution (median 39 ml) than the C-ESD cases (median 55 ml, p = 0.0003). TRS-ESD was associated with fewer deep muscle injuries (median 2) than C-ESD (median 3, p = 0.0191). Finally, the TRS group's median case length (34.5 min) was shorter than that of C-ESD (41 min, p = 0.0543).

CONCLUSION

The TRS system provides retraction and facilitates ESD regarding the number of lift injections, the volume of lift solution needed, and avoidance of muscle injuries. Of note, there is an apparent TRS learning curve, and the device mandates a distal-to-proximal approach and initial 360 degree mucosal incision. Further study is warranted.