The Minimally Invasive Manipulator: An ergonomic and economic non-robotic alternative for endoscopy?

References

• Breedveld P, Stassen HG, Meijer DW, Jakimowicz JJ. Observation in Laparoscopic Surgery: overview of impeding effects and supporting Aids. J Laparoendosc Surg. 2000;5:231–41.
   Google Scholar
• Berguer R, Forkey DL, Smith WD. Ergonomic problems associated with laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 1999;13:466–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albayrak A. Ergonomic in the operating room; transition from open to image based surgery [PhD thesis]. Delft: Delft University of Technology, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Supe AN, Kulkarni GV, Supe PA. Ergonomics in laparoscopic surgery. J Minim Access Surg. 2010;6:31–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elhage O, Challacombe B, Murphy D, Khan MS, Dasgupta P. The Evolution and Ergonomics of Robotic-Assisted Surgical Systems. [Online]. 2007. Available from http://www.intechopen.com/books/rehabilitation_robotics/the_evolution_and_ergonomics_of_robotic-assisted_surgical_systems. cited June 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Pugin F, Bucher P, Morel P. History of robotic surgery: from AESOP and ZEUS to da Vinci. J Visc Surg. 2011;148:e3–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szeto GPY, Poon JTC, Law W. A comparison of surgeon’s postural muscle activity during robotic-assisted and laparoscopic rectal surgery. J Robotic Surg. 2013;7:305–8.
   Google Scholar
• Lux MM, Marshall M, Erturk E, Joseph JV. Ergonomic evaluation and guidelines for use of the daVinci Robot System. J Endourol. 2010;24:371–5.
   Google Scholar
• Hubens G, Coverliers L, Balliu L, Ruppert W, Vaneerdeweg W. A performance study comparing manual and robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery using the da Vinci system. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:1595–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berguer RMD, Smith W. An ergonomic comparison of robotic and laparoscopic technique: the influence of surgeon experience and task complexity. J Surg Res. 2006;134:87–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballantyne GH. The pitfalls of laparoscopic surgery: challenges for robotics and telerobotic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2002;12:1–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumann C, Jacobi CA, Menenakos C, Ismail M, Rueckert JC, Mueller JM. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery with the da Vinci system: a 4-year experience in a single institution. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2008;18:260–6.
   Google Scholar
• Greenberg H. Robotic Surgery: Growing Sales, but Growing Concerns. [Online]. 2013. Available from http://www.cnbc.com/id/100564517. cited 14 July 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Maeso S, Reza M, Mayol JA, Blasco JA, Guerra M, Andradas E, et al. Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy. Ann Surg. 2010;252:254–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arezzo A. The past, the present, and the future of minimally invasive therapy in laparoscopic surgery: a review and speculative outlook. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2014;23:253–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaspers JEN, Bentala M, Herder JL, de Mol BA, Grimbergen CA. Mechanical manipulator for intuitive control of endoscopic instruments with seven degrees of freedom. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2004;13:191–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diks J, Jaspers JEN, Wissekink W, de Mol BAMJ, Grimbergen CA. The mechanical master-slave manipulator: an instrument improving the performance in standardized tasks for endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:1025–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaspers JEN, Shehata M, Wijkhuizen F, Herder JL, Grimbergen CA. Mechanical manipulator for intuitive control of endoscopic instruments with seven degrees of freedom. In Proc. ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference; Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; 2004. p 377–86.
   Google Scholar
• Grimbergen CA, Jaspers JEN, Herder JL, Stassen HG. Development of laparoscopic instruments. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2001;10:145–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xin H, Zelek JS, Carnahan H. Laparoscopic surgery, perceptual limitations and force: A review. In First Canadian Student Conference on Biomedical Computing; Kingston, Ontario, Canada; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahl G, Rassweiler J, Knoll T. 3D-laparoscopic imaging improves surgical performance on standardized ex-vivo laparoscopic tasks. J Endourol. 2012;26:1085–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurusamy KS, Sahay S, Davidson BR. Three dimensional versus two dimensional imaging for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. [Online]. JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.; 2011. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006882.pub2/pdf. cited 6 August 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Lee G, Youssef Y, Carswell M, Hui-Lio C, George I, Park A. Ergonomic safety of surgical techniques and standing positions associated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Proc Hum Fact Ergon Soc 53rd Annu Meet; 2009. p 723–7.
   Google Scholar
• Kim FJ, Sehrt DE, Molina WR, Huh JS, Rassweiler J, Turner C. Initial experience of a novel ergonomic surgical chair for laparoscopic pelvic surgery. Int Braz J Urol. 2011;37:455–60.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy T, Oliver ML. Evaluation of a dynamic armrest for hydraulic-actuation controller use. Appl Ergon. 2011;42:692–8.
   Google Scholar
• Schauer P, Ikramuddin S, Hamad G, Gourash W. The learning curve for laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is 100 cases. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:212–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah PR, Joseph A, Haray PN. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: learning curve and training implications. Postgrad Med J. 2005;81:537–40.
   Google Scholar