Medical robot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A laparoscopic robotic surgery machine. Patient-side cart of the da Vinci surgical system.

A medical robot is a robot that allows surgeons greater access to areas under operation using more
precise and less invasive methods. They are in most telemanipulators, which use the surgeon's
actions on one side to control the "effector" on the other side.[1][2][3]

Contents

[hide]

1Types of medical robots

2Disinfection robot
3See also
4External links
5References

Types of medical robots[edit]

Surgical robots
 These robots either allow surgical operations to be carried out with greater precision
than an unaided human surgeon, or allow remote surgery where a human surgeon is
not physically present with the patient.
Rehabilitation robots
This group facilitates and supports the lives of infirm, elderly people, or those with
dysfunction of body parts effecting movement. These robots are also used for
rehabilitation and related procedures, such as training and therapy.
Biorobots
A group of robots designed to imitate the cognition of humans and animals.
Telepresence robots
Allow off-site medical professionals to move, look around, communicate, and
participate from remote locations.[4]
Pharmacy automation
Robotic systems to dispense oral solids in a retail pharmacy setting or preparing
sterile IV admixtures in a hospital pharmacy setting.
Disinfection robot
has the capability to disinfect a whole room in mere minutes, generally
using ultraviolet light technology. They are being used to fight Ebola virus disease.[5]

Disinfection robot[edit]

Pulsed light (PL) is a technique to decontaminate surfaces by killing

MOs using pulses of an intense broad spectrum, rich in UV-C light.
UV-C is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum corresponding
to the band between 200 and 280 nm. PL works with Xenon flash
lamps that can produce flashes several times per
second. Disinfection robots use pulsed UV light[6][7]

1. Medical Robotics
2. Jump up^ Medical Robots: Current Systems and Research Directions
3. Jump up^ Schweikard, Achim & Ernst, Floris (October 2015). Medical Robotics. Springer
Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-3-319-22890-7.
4. Jump up^ Corley, Anne-Marie (September 2009). "The Reality of Robot Surrogates".
spectrum.ieee.com. Retrieved 19 March 2013.
5. Jump up^ U.S. Military Robots To Join Fight Against Ebola
6. Jump up^ Pulsed (UV) Light
 7. Jump up^ http://news.discovery.com/tech/robotics

Medical Robotics Text Book

RobInHeart
Medical Robots Conference
Robotic IV Automation - RIVA
Where Are the Elder Care Robots? (IEEE)

Robot-assisted surgery
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Robotic surgery)

This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve
it by removing promotional contentand inappropriate external links, and by adding
encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (December 2014)

A robotically assisted surgical system used for prostatectomies, cardiac valve repair and gynecologic surgical procedures
 Robotic surgery, computer-assisted surgery, and robotically-assisted surgery are terms for
technological developments that use robotic systems to aid in surgical procedures. Robotically-
assisted surgery was developed to overcome the limitations of pre-existing minimally-invasive
surgical procedures and to enhance the capabilities of surgeons performing open surgery.
In the case of robotically-assisted minimally-invasive surgery, instead of directly moving the
instruments, the surgeon uses one of two methods to control the instruments; either a
direct telemanipulator or through computer control. A telemanipulator is a remote manipulator that
allows the surgeon to perform the normal movements associated with the surgery whilst the robotic
arms carry out those movements using end-effectors and manipulators to perform the actual surgery
on the patient. In computer-controlled systems the surgeon uses a computer to control the robotic
arms and its end-effectors, though these systems can also still use telemanipulators for their input.
One advantage of using the computerised method is that the surgeon does not have to be present,
but can be anywhere in the world, leading to the possibility for remote surgery.
In the case of enhanced open surgery, autonomous instruments (in familiar configurations) replace
traditional steel tools, performing certain actions (such as rib spreading) with much smoother,
feedback-controlled motions than could be achieved by a human hand. The main object of such
smart instruments is to reduce or eliminate the tissue trauma traditionally associated with open
surgery without requiring more than a few minutes' training on the part of surgeons. This approach
seeks to improve open surgeries, particularly cardio-thoracic, that have so far not benefited from
minimally-invasive techniques.
Robotic surgery has been criticized for its expense, by one estimate costing $1,500 to $2000 more
per patient.[1]

Contents
[hide]

1Comparison to traditional methods

2Uses
o 2.1General surgery
o 2.2Cardiothoracic surgery
o 2.3Cardiology and electrophysiology
o 2.4Colon and rectal surgery
o 2.5Gastrointestinal surgery
o 2.6Gynecology
o 2.7Neurosurgery
o 2.8Orthopedics
o 2.9Pediatrics
o 2.10Radiosurgery
o 2.11Transplant surgery
o 2.12Urology
o 2.13Vascular surgery
3Miniature robotics
4History
5See also
6References
7External links

Comparison to traditional methods[edit]

Major advances aided by surgical robots have been remote surgery, minimally invasive surgery and
unmanned surgery. Due to robotic use, the surgery is done with precision, miniaturization, smaller
incisions; decreased blood loss, less pain, and quicker healing time. Articulation beyond normal
manipulation and three-dimensional magnification helps resulting in improved ergonomics. Due to
these techniques there is a reduced duration of hospital stays, blood loss, transfusions, and use of
pain medication.[2] The existing open surgery technique has many flaws like limited access to surgical
area, long recovery time, long hours of operation, blood loss, surgical scars and marks.[3]
The robot normally costs $1,390,000 and while its disposable supply cost is normally $1,500 per
procedure, the cost of the procedure is higher.[4] Additional surgical training is needed to operate the
system.[5] Numerous feasibility studies have been done to determine whether the purchase of such
systems are worthwhile. As it stands, opinions differ dramatically. Surgeons report that, although the
manufacturers of such systems provide training on this new technology, the learning phase is
intensive and surgeons must operate on twelve to eighteen patients before they adapt. During the
training phase, minimally invasive operations can take up to twice as long as traditional surgery,
leading to operating room tie ups and surgical staffs keeping patients under anesthesia for longer
periods. Patient surveys indicate they chose the procedure based on expectations of decreased
morbidity, improved outcomes, reduced blood loss and less pain.[2] Higher expectations may explain
higher rates of dissatisfaction and regret.[5]
Compared with other minimally invasive surgery approaches, robot-assisted surgery gives the
surgeon better control over the surgical instruments and a better view of the surgical site. In addition,
surgeons no longer have to stand throughout the surgery and do not tire as quickly. Naturally
occurring hand tremors are filtered out by the robot's computer software. Finally, the surgical robot
can continuously be used by rotating surgery teams.[6]
Critics of the system, including the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,[7] say
there is a steep learning curve for surgeons who adopt use of the system and that there's a lack of
studies that indicate long-term results are superior to results following traditional laparoscopic
surgery.[4] Articles in the newly created Journal of Robotic Surgery tend to report on one surgeon's
experience.[4]
A Medicare study found that some procedures that have traditionally been performed with large
incisions can be converted to "minimally invasive" endoscopic procedures with the use of the Da
Vinci, shortening length-of-stay in the hospital and reducing recovery times. But because of the hefty
cost of the robotic system it is not clear that it is cost-effective for hospitals and physicians despite
any benefits to patients since there is no additional reimbursement paid by the government or
insurance companies when the system is used.[4]
Robotic surgery has been criticized for its expense, by one estimate costing $1,500 to $2000 more
per patient.[1]

Uses[edit]
General surgery[edit]
In early 2000 the field of general surgical interventions with the daVinci device was explored by
surgeons at Ohio State University. Reports were published in esophageal and pancreatic surgery for
the first time in the world and further data was subsequently published by Horgan and his group at
the University of Illinois and then later at the same institution by others.[8][9] In 2007, the University of
Illinois at Chicago medical team, led by Prof. Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti, reported
a pancreatectomy and also the Midwest's first fully robotic Whipple surgery. In April 2008, the same
team of surgeons performed the world's first fully minimally invasive liver resection for living donor
transplantation, removing 60% of the patient's liver, yet allowing him to leave the hospital just a
couple of days after the procedure, in very good condition. Furthermore, the patient can also leave
with less pain than a usual surgery due to the four puncture holes and not a scar by a surgeon.[10]
Cardiothoracic surgery[edit]
Robot-assisted MIDCAB and Endoscopic coronary artery bypass (TECAB) operations are being
performed with the Da Vinci system. Mitral valve repairs and replacements have been performed.
The Ohio State University, Columbus has performed CABG, mitral
valve, esophagectomy, lung resection, tumor resections, among other robotic assisted procedures
and serves as a training site for other surgeons. In 2002, surgeons at the Cleveland Clinic in Florida
reported and published their preliminary experience with minimally invasive "hybrid" procedures.
These procedures combined robotic revascularization and coronary stenting and further expanded
the role of robots in coronary bypass to patients with disease in multiple vessels. Ongoing research
on the outcomes of robotic assisted CABG and hybrid CABG is being done.
Cardiology and electrophysiology[edit]
The Stereotaxis Magnetic Navigation System (MNS) has been developed to increase precision and
safety in ablation procedures for arrhythmias and atrial fibrillation while reducing radiation exposure
for the patient and physician, and the system utilizes two magnets to remotely steerable catheters.
The system allows for automated 3-D mapping of the heart and vasculature, and MNS has also
been used in interventional cardiology for guiding stents and leads in PCI and CTO procedures,
proven to reduce contrast usage and access tortuous anatomy unreachable by manual navigation.
Dr. Andrea Natale has referred to the new Stereotaxis procedures with the magnetic irrigated
catheters as "revolutionary."[11]
The Hansen Medical Sensei robotic catheter system uses a remotely operated system of pulleys to
navigate a steerable sheath for catheter guidance. It allows precise and more forceful positioning of
catheters used for 3-D mapping of the heart and vasculature. The system provides doctors with
estimated force feedback information and feasible manipulation within the left atrium of the heart.
The Sensei has been associated with mixed acute success rates compared to manual,
commensurate with higher procedural complications, longer procedure times but
lower fluoroscopy dosage to the patient.[12][13][14]
At present, three types of heart surgery are being performed on a routine basis using robotic surgery
systems.[15] These three surgery types are:

Atrial septal defect repair the repair of a hole between the two upper chambers of the heart,
Mitral valve repair the repair of the valve that prevents blood from regurgitating back into the
upper heart chambers during contractions of the heart,
Coronary artery bypass rerouting of blood supply by bypassing blocked arteries that provide
blood to the heart.
As surgical experience and robotic technology develop, it is expected that the applications of robots
in cardiovascular surgery will expand.
Colon and rectal surgery[edit]
Many studies have been undertaken in order to examine the role of robotic procedures in the field
of colorectal surgery.[16][17]
Results to date indicate that robotic-assisted colorectal procedures outcomes are "no worse" than
the results in the now "traditional" laparoscopic colorectal operations. Robotic-assisted colorectal
surgery appears to be safe as well.[18] Most of the procedures have been performed for malignant
colon and rectal lesions. However, surgeons are now moving into resections for diverticulitis and
non-resective rectopexies (attaching the colon to the sacrum in order to treat rectal prolapse.)
When evaluated for several variables, robotic-assisted procedures fare equally well when compared
with laparoscopic, or open abdominal operations. Study parameters have looked at intraoperative
patient preparation time, length of time to perform the operation, adequacy of the removed surgical
specimen with respect to clear surgical margins and number of lymph nodes removed, blood loss,
operative or postoperative complications and long-term results.
More difficult to evaluate are issues related to the view of the operative field, the types of procedures
that should be performed using robotic assistance and the potential added cost for a robotic
operation.
Many surgeons feel that the optics of the 3-dimensional, two camera stereo optic robotic system are
superior to the optical system used in laparoscopic procedures. The pelvic nerves are clearly
visualized during robotic-assisted procedures. Less clear however is whether or not these
supposedly improved optics and visualization improve patient outcomes with respect to
postoperative impotence or incontinence, and whether long-term patient survival is improved by
using the 3-dimensional optic system. Additionally, there is often a need for a wider, or "larger" view
of the operative field than is routinely provided during robotic operations.,[19] The close-up view of the
area under dissection may hamper visualization of the "bigger view", especially with respect to
ureteral protection.
Questions remain unanswered, even after many years of experience with robotic-assisted colorectal
operations. Ongoing studies may help clarify many of the issues of confusion associated with this
novel surgical approach.
Gastrointestinal surgery[edit]
Multiple types of procedures have been performed with either the 'Zeus' or da Vinci robot systems,
including bariatric surgery and gastrectomy[20] for cancer. Surgeons at various universities initially
published case series demonstrating different techniques and the feasibility of GI surgery using the
robotic devices.[9] Specific procedures have been more fully evaluated, specifically esophageal
fundoplication for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux[21] and Heller myotomy for the treatment of
achalasia.[22][23]
Other gastrointestinal procedures including colon resection, pancreatectomy, esophagectomy and
robotic approaches to pelvic disease have also been reported.
Gynecology[edit]
Robotic surgery in gynecology is of uncertain benefit with it being unclear if it affects rates of
complications. Gynecologic procedures may take longer with robot-assisted surgery but may be
associated with a shorter hospital stay following hysterectomy.[24] In the United States, robotic-
assisted hysterectomy for benign conditions has been shown to be more expensive than
conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy, with no difference in overall rates of complications.[25]
This includes the use of the da Vinci surgical system in benign gynecology and
gynecologic oncology. Robotic surgery can be used to treat fibroids, abnormal
periods,endometriosis, ovarian tumors, uterine prolapse, and female cancers. Using the robotic
system, gynecologists can perform hysterectomies, myomectomies, and lymph node biopsies.
Neurosurgery[edit]
Several systems for stereotactic intervention are currently on the market. The NeuroMate was the
first neurosurgical robot, commercially available in 1997.[26] Originally developed in Grenoble by Alim-
Louis_Benabid's team, it is now owned by Renishaw. With installations in the United States, Europe
and Japan, the system has been used in 8000 stereotactic brain surgeries by 2009. IMRIS Inc.'s
SYMBIS(TM) Surgical System[27] will be the version of NeuroArm, the world's first MRI-compatible
surgical robot, developed for world-wide commercialization. Medtech's Rosa is being used by
several institutions, including the Cleveland Clinic in the U.S, and in Canada at Sherbrooke
University and the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital in Montreal (MNI/H). Between June
2011 and September 2012, over 150 neurosurgical procedures at the MNI/H have been completed
robotized stereotaxy, including in the placement of depth electrodes in the treatment of epilepsy,
selective resections, and stereotaxic biopsies.
Orthopedics[edit]
The ROBODOC system was released in 1992 by Integrated Surgical Systems, Inc. which merged
into CUREXO Technology Corporation.[28] Also, The Acrobot Company Ltd.developed the "Acrobot
Sculptor", a robot that constrained a bone cutting tool to a pre-defined volume. The "Acrobot
Sculptor" was sold to Stanmore Implants in August 2010. Stanmore received FDA clearance in
February 2013 for US surgeries but sold the Sculptor to Mako Surgical in June 2013 to resolve a
patent infringement lawsuit.[29] Another example is the CASPAR robot produced by U.R.S.-Ortho
GmbH & Co. KG, which is used for total hip replacement, total knee replacement and anterior
cruciate ligamentreconstruction.[30] MAKO Surgical Corp (founded 2004) produces the RIO (Robotic
Arm Interactive Orthopedic System) which combines robotics, navigation, and haptics for both partial
knee and total hip replacement surgery.[31] Blue Belt Technologies received FDA clearance in
November 2012 for the Navio Surgical System. The Navio System is a navigated, robotics-
assisted surgical system that uses a CT free approach to assist in partial knee replacement
surgery.[32]
Pediatrics[edit]
Surgical robotics has been used in many types of pediatric surgical procedures
including: tracheoesophageal fistula repair, cholecystectomy, nissen fundoplication, morgagni's
hernia repair, kasai portoenterostomy, congenital diaphragmatic hernia repair, and others. On 17
January 2002, surgeons at Children's Hospital of Michigan in Detroit performed the nation's first
advanced computer-assisted robot-enhanced surgical procedure at a children's hospital.
The Center for Robotic Surgery at Children's Hospital Boston provides a high level of expertise in
pediatric robotic surgery. Specially-trained surgeons use a high-tech robot to perform complex and
delicate operations through very small surgical openings. The results are less pain, faster
recoveries, shorter hospital stays, smaller scars, and happier patients and families.
In 2001, Children's Hospital Boston was the first pediatric hospital to acquire a surgical robot. Today,
surgeons use the technology for many procedures and perform more pediatric robotic operations
than any other hospital in the world. Children's Hospital physicians have developed a number of new
applications to expand the use of the robot, and train surgeons from around the world on its use.[33]
Radiosurgery[edit]
The CyberKnife Robotic Radiosurgery System uses image guidance and computer controlled
robotics to treat tumors throughout the body by delivering multiple beams of high-energy radiation to
the tumor from virtually any direction. The system uses a German KUKA KR 240. Mounted on the
robot is a compact X-band linac that produces 6MV X-ray radiation. Mounting the radiation source
on the robot allows very fast repositioning of the source, which enables the system to deliver
radiation from many different directions without the need to move both the patient and source as
required by current gantry configurations.
Transplant surgery[edit]
Transplant surgery (organ transplantation) has been considered as highly technically demanding
and virtually unobtainable by means of conventional laparoscopy. For many years, transplant
patients were unable to benefit from the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. The development
of robotic technology and its associated high resolution capabilities, three dimensional visual system,
wrist type motion and fine instruments, gave opportunity for highly complex procedures to be
completed in a minimally invasive fashion. Subsequently, the first fully robotic kidney
transplantations were performed in the late 2000s. After the procedure was proven to be feasible
and safe, the main emerging challenge was to determine which patients would benefit most from this
robotic technique. As a result, recognition of the increasing prevalence of obesity amongst patients
with kidney failure on hemodialysis posed a significant problem. Due to the abundantly higher risk of
complications after traditional open kidney transplantation, obese patients were frequently denied
access to transplantation, which is the premium treatment for end stage kidney disease. The use of
the robotic-assisted approach has allowed kidneys to be transplanted with minimal incisions, which
has virtually alleviated wound complications and significantly shortened the recovery period.
The University of Illinois Medical Centerreported the largest series of 104 robotic-assisted kidney
transplants for obese recipients (mean body mass index > 42). Amongst this group of patients, no
wound infections were observed and the function of transplanted kidneys was excellent. In this way,
robotic kidney transplantation could be considered as the biggest advance in surgical technique for
this procedure since its creation more than half a century ago.[34][35][36]
Urology[edit]
Robotic surgery in the field of urology has become very popular, especially in the United States.[37] It
has been most extensively applied for excision of prostate cancer because of difficult anatomical
access. It is also utilized for kidney cancer surgeries and to lesser extent surgeries of the bladder.
As of 2014, there is little evidence of increased benefits compared to standard surgery to justify the
increased costs.[38] Some have found tentative evidence of more complete removal of cancer and
less side effects from surgery for prostatectomy.[39]
In 2000, the first robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was performed.[5]
Vascular surgery[edit]
In September 2010, the first robotic operations with Hansen Medical's Magellan Robotic System at
the femoral vasculature[disambiguation needed] were performed at the University Medical Centre Ljubljana (UMC
Ljubljana), Slovenia. The research was led by Borut Gerak, the head of the Department of
Cardiovascular Surgery at the centre. Gerak explained that the robot used was the first true robot in
the history of robotic surgery, meaning the user interface was not resembling surgical instruments
and the robot was not simply imitating the movement of human hands but was guided by pressing
buttons, just like one would play a video game. The robot was imported to Slovenia from the United
States.[40][41]

Miniature robotics[edit]
As scientists seek to improve the versatility and utility of robotics in surgery, some are attempting to
miniaturize the robots. For example, the University of Nebraska Medical Centerhas led a multi-
campus effort to provide collaborative research on mini-robotics among surgeons, engineers and
computer scientists.[42]

History[edit]
The first robot to assist in surgery was the Arthrobot, which was developed and used for the first time
in Vancouver in 1983.[43] Intimately involved were biomedical engineer, Dr. James McEwen, Geof
Auchinleck, a UBC engineering physics grad, and Dr. Brian Day as well as a team of engineering
students. The robot was used in an orthopaedic surgical procedure on 12 March 1984, at the UBC
Hospital in Vancouver. Over 60 arthroscopic surgical procedures were performed in the first 12
months, and a 1985 National Geographicvideo on industrial robots, The Robotics Revolution,
featured the device. Other related robotic devices developed at the same time included a
surgical scrub nurse robot, which handed operative instruments on voice command, and a medical
laboratory robotic arm. A YouTube video entitled Arthrobot illustrates some of these in operation.
In 1985 a robot, the Unimation Puma 200, was used to place a needle for a brain biopsy using CT
guidance.[44] In 1992, the PROBOT, developed at Imperial College London, was used to perform
prostatic surgery by Dr. Senthil Nathan at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, London. This was the first
pure robotic surgery in the world. Also the Robot Puma 560, a robot developed in 1985 by Kwoh et
al. Puma 560 was used to perform neurosurgical biopsies with greater precision. Just like with any
other technological innovation, this system led to the development of new and improved surgical
robot called PROBOT. The PROBOT was specifically designed for transurethral resection of the
prostate. Meanwhile, when PROBOT was being developed, ROBODOC, a robotic system designed
to assist hip replacement surgeries was the first surgical robot that was approved by the FDA.[45] The
ROBODOC from Integrated Surgical Systems (working closely with IBM) was introduced in 1992 to
mill out precise fittings in the femur for hip replacement.[46] The purpose of the ROBODOC was to
replace the previous method of carving out a femur for an implant, the use of a mallet and
broach/rasp.
Further development of robotic systems was carried out by SRI International and Intuitive
Surgical with the introduction of the da Vinci Surgical System and Computer Motion with
the AESOP and the ZEUS robotic surgical system.[47] The first robotic surgery took place at The Ohio
State University Medical Center in Columbus, Ohio under the direction ofRobert E.
Michler.[48] Examples of using ZEUS include a fallopian tube reconnection in July 1998,[49] a beating
heart coronary artery bypass graft in October 1999,[50] and theLindbergh Operation, which was
a cholecystectomy performed remotely in September 2001.[51]
The original telesurgery robotic system that the da Vinci was based on was developed at SRI
International in Menlo Park with grant support from DARPA and NASA.[52] Although the telesurgical
robot was originally intended to facilitate remotely performed surgery in battlefield and other remote
environments, it turned out to be more useful for minimally invasive on-site surgery. The patents for
the early prototype were sold to Intuitive Surgical in Mountain View, California. The da Vinci senses
the surgeon's hand movements and translates them electronically into scaled-down micro-
movements to manipulate the tiny proprietary instruments. It also detects and filters out any tremors
in the surgeon's hand movements, so that they are not duplicated robotically. The camera used in
the system provides a true stereoscopic picture transmitted to a surgeon's console. Examples of
using the da Vinci system include the first robotically assisted heart bypass (performed in Germany)
in May 1998, and the first performed in the United States in September 1999;[citation needed] and the first
all-robotic-assisted kidney transplant, performed in January 2009.[53] The da Vinci Si was released in
April 2009, and initially sold for $1.75 million.[54]
In May 2006 the first artificial intelligence doctor-conducted unassisted robotic surgery on a 34-year-
old male to correct heart arythmia. The results were rated as better than an above-average human
surgeon. The machine had a database of 10,000 similar operations, and so, in the words of its
designers, was "more than qualified to operate on any patient".[55][56] In August 2007, Dr. Sijo
Parekattil of the Robotics Institute and Center for Urology (Winter Haven Hospital and University of
Florida) performed the first robotic assisted microsurgery procedure denervation of the spermatic
cord for chronic testicular pain.[57] In February 2008, Dr. Mohan S. Gundeti of the University of
Chicago Comer Children's Hospital performed the first robotic pediatric neurogenic bladder
reconstruction.[58]
On 12 May 2008, the first image-guided MR-compatible robotic neurosurgical procedure was
performed at University of Calgary by Dr. Garnette Sutherland using theNeuroArm.[59] In June 2008,
the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) presented a robotic system for minimally invasive surgery,
the MiroSurge.[60] In September 2010, the Eindhoven University of Technology announced the
development of the Sofie surgical system, the first surgical robot to employ force feedback.[61] In
September 2010, the first robotic operation at the femoral vasculature[disambiguation needed] was performed at
the University Medical Centre Ljubljana by a team led by Borut Gerak.[40][41]
See also[edit]
Bone segment navigation
Computer-assisted surgery
Computer-integrated surgery
Minimally invasive surgery
Patient registration
Stereolithography (medicine)
Surgical Segment Navigator
Telemedicine

References[edit]
1. ^ Jump up to:a b http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/health/14robot.html?_r=0.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Estey, EP (2009). "Robotic prostatectomy: The new standard of care or a marketing
success?". Canadian Urological Association Journal 3 (6): 48890. PMC 2792423.PMID 20019980.
3. Jump up^ O'Toole, M. D.; Bouazza-Marouf, K.; Kerr, D.; Gooroochurn, M.; Vloeberghs, M. (2009). "A
methodology for design and appraisal of surgical robotic systems". Robotica28 (2): 297
310. doi:10.1017/S0263574709990658.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Kolata, Gina (13 February 2010). "Results Unproven, Robotic Surgery Wins Converts". The
New York Times. Retrieved 11 March 2010.
5. ^ Jump up to:a b c Finkelstein J; Eckersberger E; Sadri H; Taneja SS; Lepor H; Djavan B (2010)."Open Versus
Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: The European and US Experience". Reviews
in Urology 12 (1): 3543. PMC 2859140.PMID 20428292.
6. Jump up^ Gerhardus, D (JulyAugust 2003). "Robot-assisted surgery: the future is here". Journal of Healthcare
Management 48 (4): 242251. PMID 12908224.
7. Jump up^ Breeden, James T., MD, President of ACOG, [1] Statement on Robotic Surgery, 14 March 2013
8. Jump up^ Melvin, W. S.; Needleman, B. J.; Krause, K. R.; Ellison, E. C. (February 2003). "Robotic Resection of
Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumor". Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques 13 (1): 33
36. doi:10.1089/109264203321235449.
9. ^ Jump up to:a b Talamini, M. A.; Chapman, S.; Horgan, S.; Melvin, W. S. (October 2003). "A prospective analysis
of 211 robotic-assisted surgical procedures". Surgical Endoscopy 17(10): 15211524. doi:10.1007/s00464-002-
8853-3. PMID 12915974.
10. Jump up^ Ahmed, K.; Khan, M. S.; Vats, A.; Nagpal, K.; Priest, O.; Patel, V.; Vecht, J. A.; Ashrafian, H.; et al.
(October 2009). "Current status of robotic assisted pelvic surgery and future developments". International Journal
of Surgery 7 (5): 431440.doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2009.08.008. PMID 19735746.
11. Jump up^ TCAI Press Release, 3 March 2009
12. Jump up^ Natale et al., Lessons Learned and Techniques Altered Following Early Experience of the Hansen
Robotic System During Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation, Poster Session II, HRS 2008
13. Jump up^ Barnebei et al., Lahey Clinic, presented at HRS 2009: PO04-35 Robotic versus Manual Catheter
Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation
14. Jump up^ R. Liew, L. Richmond, V. Baker, F. Goromonzi, G. Thomas, M. Finlay, M. Dhinoja, M. Earley, S.
Sporton, R. Schilling, National Heart Centre Singapore Singapore, Barts and the London NHS Trust London
United Kingdom European Heart Journal ( 2009 ) 30 ( Abstract Supplement ), 910
15. Jump up^ Kypson, Alan P; Chitwood Jr., W. Randolph (2004). "Robotic Applications in Cardiac
Surgery". International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 1 (2): 87
92.arXiv:cs/0412055. Bibcode:2004cs.......12055K.
16. Jump up^ D'Annibale, A et al. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum. December 2004. Volume 47, issue 12, pp.
21622168
17. Jump up^ Spinoglio, G. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum. November 2008. Volume 51, issue 11, pp. 1627
1632
18. Jump up^ Delaney, C. et al. Diseases of the colon and rectum. December 2003. Volume 46, pp. 16331639
19. Jump up^ Braumann, C. et al. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum. December 2005. Volume 48, Number 9,
pp1820-1827.
20. Jump up^ Myung-Han, Hyun; Chung-Ho Lee; Hyun-Jung Kim; YiXin Tong; Sung-Soo Park (November 2013).
"Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic surgery compared with conventional laparoscopic and open
 resection for gastric carcinoma". British Journal of Surgery 100 (12): 156678. doi:10.1002/bjs.9242 (inactive
2015-02-01).PMID 24264778.
21. Jump up^ Melvin, W. Scott; Needleman, Bradley J.; Krause, Kevin R.; Schneider, Carol; Ellison, E. Christopher
(2002). "Computer-Enhanced vs. Standard Laparoscopic Antireflux Surgery". Journal of Gastrointestinal
Surgery 6 (1): 1115; discussion 156.doi:10.1016/S1091-255X(01)00032-4. PMID 11986012.
22. Jump up^ Melvin, W. S.; Dundon, J. M.; Talamini, M.; Horgan, S. (October 2005). "Computer-enhanced robotic
telesurgery minimizes esophageal perforation during Heller myotomy".Surgery 138 (4): 553558; discussion 558
9. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2005.07.025.PMID 16269282.
23. Jump up^ Shaligram A; Unnirevi J; Simorov A; Kothari VM; Oleynikov D (April 2012). "How does the robot affect
outcomes? A retrospective review of open, laparoscopic, and robotic Heller myotomy for achalasia". Surgical
Endoscopy 26 (4): 104750. doi:10.1007/s00464-011-1994-5. PMID 22038167.
24. Jump up^ Liu, H; Lawrie, TA; Lu, D; Song, H; Wang, L; Shi, G (10 December 2014). "Robot-assisted surgery in
gynaecology". The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 12:
CD011422. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011422. PMID 25493418.
25. Jump up^ "Committee Opinion: Robotic Surgery in Gynecolgy". Obstetrics and Gynecolgy 125: 760767. March
2015. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000461761.47981.07.
26. Jump up^ "Robot-Assisted Surgery: Neurosurgery". Biomed.brown.edu. Retrieved 25 June2013.
27. Jump up^ "SYMBIS Homepage on IMRIS Website".
28. Jump up^ ROBODOC history. Robodoc.com. Retrieved 29 November 2011.
29. Jump up^ Acrobot Sculptor[dead link]
30. Jump up^ Siebert, W.; Mai, Sabine; Kober, Rudolf; Heeckt, Peter F. (30 December 2004). "Chapter 12 Total
knee replacement: robotic assistive technique". In DiGioia, Anthony M.; Jaramaz, Branislav; Picard, Frederic;
Nolte, Lutz-Peter. Computer and robotic assisted hip and knee surgery. Oxford University Press. pp. 127
156. ISBN 0-19-850943-X.
31. Jump up^ "Home | MAKO Surgical Corp". Makosurgical.com. 3 June 2013. Retrieved 25 June2013.
32. Jump up^ "Home | Blue Belt Technologies, Inc.". Bluebelttech.com. 24 June 2014. Retrieved24 June 2014.
33. Jump up^ "Robotic Surgery". Children's Hospital Center. Archived from the original on 16 April 2014.
Retrieved 29 November 2011.
34. Jump up^ Giulianotti PC, Gorodner V, Sbrana F, Tzvetanov I, Jeon H, Bianco F, Kinzer K, Oberholzer J,
Benedetti E (2010). "Robotic Trans-Abdominal Kidney Transplantation in a Morbidly Obese Patient". AJT 10: 15.
35. Jump up^ Oberholzer J, Giulianotti P, Danielson KK, Spaggiari M, Bejarano-Pineda L, Bianco F, Tzvetanov I,
Ayloo S, Jeon H, Garcia-Roca R, Thielke J, Tang I, Akkina S, Becker B, Kinzer K, Patel A, Benedetti E (2013).
"Minimally invasive robotic kidney transplantation for obese patients previously denied access to
transplantation". American Journal of Transplantation 13 (3): 7218. doi:10.1111/ajt.12078. PMID 23437881.
36. Jump up^ Tzvetanov I, Giulianotti PC, Bejarano-Pineda L, Jeon H, Garcia-Roca R, Bianco F, Oberholzer J,
Benedetti E (December 2013). "Robotic-assisted kidney transplantation".Surg Clin North Am. 93 (6): 1309
23. doi:10.1016/j.suc.2013.08.003.
37. Jump up^ Lee, DI (April 2009). "Robotic prostatectomy: what we have learned and where we are going". Yonsei
Med J 50 (2): 17781. doi:10.3349/ymj.2009.50.2.177.PMC 2678689. PMID 19430547.
38. Jump up^ Williams, SB; Prado, K; Hu, JC (November 2014). "Economics of robotic surgery: does it make sense
and for whom?". The Urologic clinics of North America 41 (4): 591
6.doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2014.07.013. PMID 25306170.
39. Jump up^ Ramsay, C; Pickard, R; Robertson, C; Close, A; Vale, L; Armstrong, N; Barocas, DA; Eden, CG;
Fraser, C; Gurung, T; Jenkinson, D; Jia, X; Lam, TB; Mowatt, G; Neal, DE; Robinson, MC; Royle, J; Rushton, SP;
Sharma, P; Shirley, MD; Soomro, N (2012). "Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical
benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with
localised prostate cancer.". Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 16 (41): 1
313. doi:10.3310/hta16410. PMID 23127367.
40. ^ Jump up to:a b "V UKC Ljubljana prvi na svetu uporabili ilnega robota za posege na femoralnem ilju" [The
First Use of a Vascular Robot for Procedures on Femoral Vasculature] (in Slovenian). 8 November 2010.
Retrieved 1 April 2011.
41. ^ Jump up to:a b "UKC Ljubljana kljub finannim omejitvam uspeen v razvoju medicine" [UMC Ljubljana
Successfully Develops Medicine Despite Financial Limitations] (in Slovenian). 30 March 2011.
42. Jump up^ Graham-Rowe, Duncan (26 January 2006). "Robot set loose to film your insides".New Scientist (2536).
Retrieved 29 November 2011.
43. Jump up^ "Medical Post 23:1985" (PDF).
44. Jump up^ Kwoh, Y. S.; Hou, J.; Jonckheere, E. A. & Hayall, S. (February 1988). "A robot with improved absolute
positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery". IEEE Transactions on Biomedical
Engineering 35 (2): 153161. doi:10.1109/10.1354.
45. Jump up^ Lanfranco, Anthony R.; Castellanos, Andres E.; Desai, Jaydev P.; Meyers, William C."Robotic
Surgery". Annals of Surgery 239 (1): 14
21.doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000103020.19595.7d. PMC 1356187. PMID 14685095.
 46. Jump up^ "ROBODOC: Surgical Robot Success Story" (PDF). Retrieved 25 June 2013.
47. Jump up^ Meadows, Michelle. "Computer-Assisted Surgery: An Update". FDA Consumer magazine. Food and
Drug Administration. Archived from the original on 1 March 2009.
48. Jump up^ McConnell, PI; Schneeberger, EW; Michler, RE (2003). "History and development of robotic cardiac
surgery". Problems in General Surgery 20 (2): 2030.doi:10.1097/01.sgs.0000081182.03671.6e.
49. Jump up^ Leslie Versweyveld (29 September 1999). "ZEUS robot system reverses sterilization to enable birth of
baby boy". Virtual Medical Worlds Monthly.
50. Jump up^ "Robotics: the Future of Minimally Invasive Heart Surgery". Biomed.brown.edu. 6 October 1999.
Retrieved 29 November 2011.
51. Jump up^ "Linbergh Operation IRCAD/EITS Laparoscopic Center". Retrieved 19 January2011.
52. Jump up^ "Telerobotic Surgery". SRI International. Retrieved 30 September 2013.
53. Jump up^ "New Robot Technology Eases Kidney Transplants". CBS News. 22 June 2009. Retrieved 8 July 2009.
54. Jump up^ "da Vinci Si Surgical System". Intuitive Surgical. Retrieved 30 September 2013.
55. Jump up^ "Autonomous Robotic Surgeon performs surgery on first live human". Engadget. 19 May 2006.
56. Jump up^ "Robot surgeon carries out 9-hour operation by itself". Phys.Org.
57. Jump up^ Parekattil, Sijo. "Robotic Infertility". Retrieved 11 October 2012.
58. Jump up^ "Surgeons perform world's first pediatric robotic bladder reconstruction". Esciencenews.com. 20
November 2008. Retrieved 29 November 2011.
59. Jump up^ "neuroArm : revolutionary procedure a world first". ucalgary.ca. 16 May 2008. Retrieved 14
November 2012.
60. Jump up^ Hagn, U.; Nickl, M.; Jrg, S.; Tobergte, A.; Kbler, B.; Passig, G.; Grger, M.; Frhlich, F.; Seibold, U.;
Konietschke, R.; Le-Tien, L.; Albu-Schffer, A.; Grebenstein, M.; Ortmaier, T. & Hirzinger, G. (2008). "DLR
MiroSurge towards versatility in surgical robotics". Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft fr Computer und
Roboterassistierte Chirurgie; Proceedings of CURAC 7: 143146.
61. Jump up^ "Beter opereren met nieuwe Nederlandse operatierobot Sofie" (in Dutch). TU/e. 27 September 2010.
Retrieved 10 October 2010.

Biorobotics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see Biomechanical (disambiguation).

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please

help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2011)

Biorobotics is a term that loosely covers the fields of cybernetics, bionics and even genetic
engineering as a collective study.
Biorobotics is often used to refer to a real subfield of robotics: studying how to make robots that
emulate or simulate living biological organisms mechanically or even chemically. The term is also
 used in a reverse definition: making biological organisms as manipulatable and functional as robots,
or making biological organisms as components of robots.
In the latter sense, biorobotics can be referred to as a theoretical discipline of comprehensive
genetic engineering in which organisms are created and designed by artificial means. The creation
of life from non-living matter for example, would be biorobotics. The field is in its infancy and is
sometimes known as synthetic biology or bionanotechnology.
In fiction, biorobotics makes many appearances, like the biots of the novel Rendezvous with
Rama or the replicants of the film Blade Runner.

Contents
[hide]

1Biorobotics in fiction
2Practical experimentation
3See also
4References
5External links

Biorobotics in fiction[edit]
See also: Category:Biorobots in fiction

Biorobotics has made many appearances in works of fiction, often in the form of synthetic biological
organisms.
The robots featured in Rossum's Universal Robots (the play that originally coined the term robot) are
presented as synthetic biological entities closer to biological organisms than the mechanical objects
that the term robot came to refer to. The replicants in the film Blade Runner are biological in nature:
they are organisms of living tissue and cells created artificially. In the novel The Windup Girl by
Paolo Bacigalupi, "windups" or "New People" are genetically engineered organisms.
In the LEGO series, BIONICLE, all of the organisms (except for one, Tren Krom)are biorobotic, or as
they call them in the series, biomechanical.
The word biot, a portmanteau of "biological robot", was originally coined by Arthur C. Clarke in his
1972 novel Rendezvous with Rama. Biots are depicted as artificial biological organisms created to
perform specific tasks on the space vessel Rama. This affects their physical attributes and cognitive
abilities.
Humanoid Cylons in the 2004 television series Battlestar Galactica are another example of biological
robots in fictions. Almost undistinguishable from humans, they are artificial creations created by
mechanical cylons.
The authors of the Star Wars book series The New Jedi Order reprised the term biot. The Yuuzhan
Vong uses the term to designate their biotechnology.
The term bioroid, or biological android, as also been used to designate artificial biological organisms,
like in the manga Appleseed. In 1985 the animated Robotech television series popularized the term
when it reused the term from the 1984 Japanese series The Super Dimension Cavalry Southern
Cross. The term was also popularized in the 1988 computer game Snatcher, which features bioroids
that kill, or "snatch", humans that they then take place of in society.
The term reploid, or replicate-android, is used in the Capcom video game series Mega Man X. Much
like Blade Runner's replicants these beings are more human in thinking and emotional awareness
then previous generations, despite some being made into animal shapes to purposely distinguish
them from humans. Another further future form of these robots, seen in Mega Man Zero, have them
being so close to humans that they can actually eat, sleep, and reproduce. The only thing setting
them apart is their semi-inorganic skeletal systems. In another farther flung future version and
evolution of these bio-machines in the series Mega Man ZX humans and robots have merged
seemingly so closely they are no longer a separate race but in-fact two parts to a whole new race.
The final future of the game series is Mega Man Legends where humans and robots are one being
to the point they can actually get together and reproduce offspring without effort.
In Warhammer 40k Imperium uses servitors, vat-grown humans with cybernetic parts replacing most
parts of the body.They lack emotions or intelligence and are only capable of simple tasks. A more
advanced imperial robots are used by the imperium; instead of using humans, they are mostly
machine with a biological brain and other biological parts. Unlike servitors, they are capable of
having programmed instincts for combat, but still they lack any true intelligence.

Practical experimentation[edit]
Orel V.E. invented the device of mechanochemiemission microbiorobotics. The phenomenon of
mechanochemiemission is related to the processes interconversion of mechanical, chemical,
electromagnetic energy in the mitochondria. Microbiorobot may be used for treatment of cancer
patients.[1][2]
A biological brain, grown from cultured neurons which were originally separated, has been
developed as the neurological entity subsequently embodied within a robot body byKevin
Warwick and his team at University of Reading. The brain receives input from sensors on the robot
body and the resultant output from the brain provides the robot's only motor signals. The biological
brain is the only brain of the robot.[3]

biorobotics
Biorobotics is the use of biological characteristics in living organisms as the
knowledge base for developing new robot designs. The term can also refer to the use
of biological specimens as functional robot components. Biorobotics intersects the
fields of cybernetics, bionics, biology, physiology, and genetic engineering.

Biorobotics has been, and continues to be, exploited by the authors of science fiction
books and movies. Androids (humanoid robots) represent the most obvious
example. "Commander Data" in Star Trek, The Next Generation (TV series) is perhaps
the most well-known android in science fiction. So are the "Borg" human/robot
hybrids familiar to fans of the series. However, androids are neither new nor
confined to the realms of fiction. A leading Japanese robotics engineer and
researcher, Ichiro Kato, worked with robot substitutes for human body parts during
the 20th Century. In the 1970s he constructed a full-size android called WABOT-1.

Biorobotics
With an understanding of biomechanics, engineers can develop biologically-
inspired robots with improved and enhanced capabilities over traditional
robots, which arehow shall we sayrobotic! Biologically-inspired robots
have greater mobility and flexibility than traditional robots and often possess
sensory abilities.

Biorobotic technologies are often utilized to provide assistance to

accommodate a deficiencyeither as fully-functioning robots or highly
advanced prosthetics; the latter represents one area in which neural
engineering and biorobotics intersect as both disciplines are required in order
to first signal and then generate movement. Such devices may also be used to
measure the state of disease, track progress or offer interactive training
experiences that can speed recovery from an injury or stroke
(see rehabilitation engineering).

Biorobotics encompasses a diverse array of disciplines with a myriad of

applications. Researchers in Italy, for example, are developing artificial
sensing skin that can detect pressure as contact is made with an object.
Tactile sensors are important not only for self-standing robots and limb
prostheses but as a means of restoring the sense of touch to diabetics with
peripheral neuropathy by mimicking sensations normally gleaned by
fingerpads and feet. This one application of biorobotics requires contributions
from biomedical engineers studying tissue engineering, neural engineering,
biomimetics and BioMEMS.

Italian scientists are also exploring the potential for early diagnosis of autism
by monitoring sensory-motor development through mechatronic-sensorized
toys, such as rattles with force and contact sensors.

Biorobotics is being used to help train surgeons and dentists using virtual
environments that speed the learning process by facilitating epiphanies, or
Aha moments. It is also being used to assist in actual surgeries, allowing
for more precise and less invasive interventions. Endoscopic robots at the tip
of a probe can, for example, remove a polyp during a colonoscopy. And
mechatronic handheld tools allow surgeons to manipulate their hands at the
macro level while affecting similar responses from a mechanical device
operating at the micro level. One day, this could even lead to cellular
surgery.

Key to surgical robotics is the sense of touch, or haptics. Many researchers

are exploring how to enhance haptic perception and feedback to allow a
surgeon to virtually palpate and squeeze tissue and sense how deep to make
an incision.

As robots become more sophisticated and embedded in our lives, Human-

Robot Interaction & Coordination (HRI&C) has emerged as a sub-discipline
that focuses on the behavior and place of robots in society.
You might also be interested in:
Biomechanics
Neural Engineering
Rehabilitation Engineering
Wearable & Implantable Technologies
Micro- & Nanotechnologies
http://www.embs.org/about-biomedical-engineering/our-areas-of-research/biorobotics/

BIOROBOTICS: METHODS AND APPLICATIONS

Edited by Barbara Webb and Thomas R. Consi

300 pp., references, index, illus., $45.00 softcover, ISBN 978-0-262-73141-6
[Add to Cart] [View Cart]

Animal-like robots are playing an increasingly important role as a link between the worlds of biology and engineering. The new,
multidisciplinary field of biorobotics provides tools for biologists studying animal behavior and test beds for the study and evaluation
of biological algorithms for potential engineering applications. This book focuses on the role of robots as tools for biologists.

An animal is profoundly affected by the many subtle and complex signals within its environment, and because the animal invariably
disturbs its environment, it constantly creates a new set of stimuli. Biorobots are now enabling biologists to understand these
complex animal-environment relationships. This book unites scientists from diverse disciplines who are using biorobots to probe
animal behavior and brain function. The first section describes the sensory systems of biorobotic crickets, lobsters, and ants and the
visual system of flies. The second section discusses robots with cockroachlike motor systems and the intriguing question of how the
evolution of complex motor abilities could lead to the development of cognitive functions. The final section discusses higher brain
function and neural modeling in mammalian and humanoid robots.

Barbara Webb builds robotic crickets and is a Lecturer in the Department of Psychology at the University of Stirling, Scotland.

Thomas R. Consi builds marine robots and is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Ocean Engineering at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Contributors
Nikolaus Almssy, Thomas R. Consi, Holk Cruse, Nicolas Franceschini, Frank W. Grasso, Dimitrios Lambrinos, Ralf Mller, Rolf
Pfeifer, Roger D. Quinn, Roy E. Ritzmann, Thorsten Roggendorf, Brian Scassellati, Olaf Sporns, Stphane Viollet, Barbara Webb, and
Rdiger Wehner.

http://www.aaai.org/Press/Books/webb.php

Biorobotics: an instrument for an

improved quality of life. An application
for the analysis of neuromotor
diseases
This paper deals with the developed researches of biorobotics, as an instrument for the maintenance of
the quality of human senses, complete control of the nervous system, activation of neuron circuits,
recovery of damaged neuromotor functions, rehabilitation of vocal cords, and neuromotor system control
following devastating diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. An application of biorobotics is here
presented: DDX is an experimental biorobotic system designed to acquire and provide data about human
finger movement, applied in the analysis of neural disturbances with quantitative evaluation of both
response times and dynamic action of the patient. The goal of the biorobotic system is to measure the
response parameters of a person in front of a "soft touch", made by his finger in front of a button. It is now
applied in daily clinical activity to diagnose the progression of the Parkinson pathology.