Flexible instrument for minimally invasive robotic surgery using rapid prototyping technology for fabrication

Mintenbeck, Julien; Siegfarth, Marius; Estaña, Ramon; Wörn, Heinz

doi:10.1109/aim.2014.6878225

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Morimoto and Okamura [71] 2016 Minimally invasive procedure U-GP Oliver-Butler et al [67] 2017 Endoscopic procedure U-GP Jelínek et al [60] 2014 Minimally invasive surgery U-GP Jelínek et al [61] 2015 Minimally invasive surgery U-GP Jelínek et Breedveld [62] 2015 Minimally invasive surgery U-GP Qi et al [72] 2016 Minimally invasive surgery U-GP Amanov et al [73] 2015 Minimally invasive surgery U-GP Boehler et al [79] 2016 MR-guided percutaneous procedure U-GP Entsfellner et al [80] 2014 Ear Nose Throat (ENT) surgery U-GP Krieger et al [76] 2017 Endoscopic surgery U-GP Mintenbeck et al [68] 2014 Minimally invasive surgery U-GP Cortes-Rodicio et al [81] 2017 PET-guided biopsy U-GP Seneci et al [63] 2015 Laparoscopic surgery U-GP Coemert et al [78] 2017 Minimally invasive surgery U-GP Nowell et al [74] 2017 Endonasal surgery U-GP Roppenecker et al [70] 2013 Single-port gastroenterology surgery U-GP Kesner and Howe [83] 2011 Force measurement in catheter U-GP Roppenecker et al [77] 2012 Single port surgery U-GP Seneci et al [64] 2017 General surgery U-GP Schmitz et al [75] 2017 General surgery U-GP Sakes et al [65] 2018 Minimally invasive surgery U-GP Sahlabadi et al [66] 2017 Percutaneous intervention U-GP Fontanelli et al [84] 2017 Minimally invasive robotic surgery U-GP Kim et al [69] 2015 Neurosurgery U-GP García et al [85] 2018 Trans-anal endoscopic procedure U-GP Saafi et al [82] 2018 Laparoscopic surgery U-GP Zizer et al [86] 2016 Endoscopic submucosal dissection U-SP Chen et al [87] 2016 Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia U-SP Krieger et al [88] 2016 Partial nephrectomy U-SP Epaminonda et al [89] 2016 Cervical cancer U-SP Menikou et al [90] 2017 Pain palliation bone cancer U-SP Peikari et al [91] 2011 Transrectal brachytherapy U-SP Maeda et al…”

Section: Author(s) Publication Year Clinical Application Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many research groups focused their work on new designs for continuum robots and manipulators [67][68][69][71][72][73][74][75]. Morimoto et al [71], Oliver-Butler et al [67], and Amanov et al [73] proposed concentric tube structures based on the sliding motion of one tube into the other to achieve a snake-like motion (Fig.…”

Section: Unconventional General-purpose Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5d). A similar continuum robot was presented by Mintenbeck et al [68] but, in contrast to concentric tube structures that usually decrease the number of parts, the body of this robot was made of multiple elements that were grouped into two cable-driven segments able to move with four DOFs, as shown in Fig. 5c.…”

Section: Unconventional General-purpose Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5. Examples of "unconventional general purpose" instruments: (a) steerable laparoscopic grasper with seven degrees of freedom; (b) 3D printed concentric tube robot [67]; (c) cable-driven continuum robot [68]; (d) the snake-like system presented by Kim et al [69]; (e) different structures of the overtube presented by professor Lueth's group [70].…”

Section: Unconventional General-purpose Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Additive manufacturing of medical instruments: A state-of-the-art review

Culmone

Smit

Breedveld

2019

Additive Manufacturing

206

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Additive manufacturing, also known as 3D printing, has begun to play a significant role in the field of medical devices. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview and classification of additively manufactured medical instruments for diagnostics and surgery by identifying medical and technical aspects. Methods: A scientific literature search on additively manufactured medical instruments was conducted using the Scopus database. Results: We categorized the relevant articles ( 71) by considering the novelty of each proposed instrument and its clinical application. Then, we analyzed the relevant articles by examining the reasons behind choosing additive manufacturing technology to produce instruments for diagnostics and surgery. Possible customization (27%) and Cost-effectiveness (23%) were the main reasons expressed. Technical specifications of the additive manufacturing technology and the material used were also analyzed, and a tendency of using material extrusion technology (35% of the applications) and polymeric materials (86% of the applications) was shown. Conclusions: Additive manufacturing is opening the door to a new approach in the production of medical devices, which allows the complexity of their designs to be pushed to the extreme. However, we found that technical limitations need to be tackled and important aspects such as sterilization or debris contamination are still not considered to be relevant factors during the design and fabrication process. Keeping in mind the challenges of such a new field, additive manufacturing technology can be considered as a great opportunity to provide easy access to healthcare in developing countries as well as an important step toward patient-specific medicine.

show abstract

Section: Author(s) Publication Year Clinical Application Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Unconventional General-purpose Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Unconventional General-purpose Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Unconventional General-purpose Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Additive manufacturing of medical instruments: A state-of-the-art review

Culmone

Smit

Breedveld

2019

Additive Manufacturing

206

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many research groups are exploiting this technology in the field of medical instruments [29]. An example is given by the manipulator presented by Mintenbeck et al in which AM was used in the fabrication of the steerable segments [30]. Morimoto et al applied AM into concentric tube robots investigating different materials and 3D printing technology [31], whereas at the Technical University of Munich researchers developed a 3D printed overtube to enhance the properties of conventional flexible endoscopes [32] [33].…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring non-assembly 3D printing for novel compliant surgical devices

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In minimally invasive surgery, maneuverability is usually limited and a large number of degrees of freedom (DOF) is highly demanded. However, increasing the DOF usually means increasing the complexity of the surgical instrument leading to long fabrication and assembly times. In this work, we propose the first fully 3D printed handheld, multi-steerable device. The proposed device is mechanically actuated, and possesses five serially controlled segments. We designed a new compliant segment providing high torsion and axial stiffness as well as a low bending stiffness by merging the functions of four helicoids and a continuum backbone. Compliant segments were combined to form the compliant shaft of the new device. In order to control this compliant shaft, a control handle was designed that mimics the shaft structure. A prototype called the HelicoFlex was built using only three 3D printed parts. HelicoFlex, with its 10 degrees of freedom, showed a fluid motion in performing single and multi-curved paths. The multi-steerable instrument was 3D printed without any support material in the compliant shaft itself. This work contributes to enlarge the body of knowledge regarding how additive manufacturing could be used in the production of multi-steerable surgical instruments for personalized medicine.

show abstract

The Design of Endovascular Robots for Cardiac Interventions: A Survey

Alekseeva,

Viller,

Romanov

2024

Journal of Field Robotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents a survey of modern robots for percutaneous coronary interventions. It covers papers published before October 2024. The robotic systems introduced in these papers are compared by their design, tool manipulation principles, surgical tools compatibility, and human–machine interfaces, including types of feedback. The paper provides an overview of all main design approaches ever implemented in percutaneous coronary intervention robotics and critically analyzes their pros and cons. The survey covers 62 endovascular robotic systems (11 commercial and 51 academic) and 23 endovascular robotic tools, making it the most representative to date to the best of our knowledge. All of these solutions have been implemented at least as prototypes, while some of them have been tested in vivo and even reached clinical practice. In the discussion section, we critically analyze the known field experience with the use of the CorPath GRX (one of the most popular commercial systems currently used in several hospitals around the world), discuss the reasons for the insufficient spread of robotic endovascular surgery and propose a vision for changing this trend. This survey is intended primarily for engineers designing new medical robotic systems. However, it will also be of interest to endovascular surgeons to help them better understand the trade‐offs of both the products already in the market and the promising solutions that will be available in the future.

show abstract

Flexible instrument for minimally invasive robotic surgery using rapid prototyping technology for fabrication

Cited by 4 publications

References 7 publications

Additive manufacturing of medical instruments: A state-of-the-art review

Additive manufacturing of medical instruments: A state-of-the-art review

Exploring non-assembly 3D printing for novel compliant surgical devices

The Design of Endovascular Robots for Cardiac Interventions: A Survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About