Patient-specific surgical simulator for the pre-operative planning of single-incision laparoscopic surgery with bimanual robots

References

• Mack MJ. Minimally invasive and robotic surgery. JAMA 2001; 285: 568–572
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Meijden OA, Schijven MP. The value of haptic feedback in conventional and robot-assisted minimal invasive surgery and virtual reality training: A current review. Surg Endosc 2009; 23: 1180–1190
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph RA, Goh AC, Cuevas SP, Donovan MA, Kauffman MG, Salas NA, Miles B, Bass BL, Dunkin BJ. “Chopstick” surgery: A novel technique improves surgeon performance and eliminates arm collision in robotic single-incision laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 1331–1335
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romanelli JR, Earle DB. Single-port laparoscopic surgery: An overview. Surg Endosc 2010; 23: 1419–1427
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haber GP, White MA, Autorino R, Escobar PF, Kroh MD, Chalikonda S, Khanna R, Forest S, Yang B, Altunrende F, et al. Novel robotic da Vinci instruments for laparoendoscopic single-site surgery. Urology 2010; 76: 1279–1282
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehman AC, Wood NA, Farritor S, Goede MR, Oleynikov D. Dexterous miniature robot for advanced minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 2011; 25: 19–23
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• www.araknes.org
   Google Scholar
• Piccigallo M, Scarfogliero U, Quaglia C, Petroni G, Valdastri P, Menciassi A, Dario P. Design of a novel bimanual robotic system for single-port laparoscopy. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatronics 2010; 15: 871–878
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seixas-Mikelus SA, Kesavadas T, Srimathveeravalli G, Chandrasekhar R, Wilding GE, Guru KA. Face validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. Urology 2010; 76: 357–360
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• www.simulatedsurgicals.com
   Google Scholar
• www.mimic.ws
   Google Scholar
• Sethi AS, Peine WJ, Mohammadi Y, Sundaram CP. Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator. J Endourol 2009; 23: 503–508
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• www.simsurgery.com
   Google Scholar
• Lin DW, Romanelli JR, Kuhn JN, Thompson RE, Bush RW, Seymour NE. Computer-based laparoscopic and robotic surgical simulators: performance characteristics and perceptions of new users. Surg Endosc 2009; 23: 209–214
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauritsen ML, Bulut O, Single-port access laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection through the colostomy site: A case report. Tech Coloproctol 2011 Jun 11 [Epub ahead of print]
   Google Scholar
• Hayashibe M, Suzuki N, Hashizume M, Kakeji Y, Konishi K, Suzuki S, Hattori A. Preoperative planning system for surgical robotics setup with kinematics and haptics. Int J Med Robot 2005; 1: 76–85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moglia A, Turini G, Ferrari V, Ferrari M, Mosca F. Patient specific surgical simulator for the evaluation of the movability of bimanual robotic arms. Stud Health Technol Inform 2011; 163: 379–385
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cignoni P, Corsini M, Ranzuglia G. Meshlab: An open-source 3d mesh processing system. ERCIM News 2008; 73: 45–46
   Google Scholar
• http://usa.autodesk.com/maya/
   Google Scholar
• Ferrari V, Cappelli C, Megali G, Pietrabissa A, An anatomy driven approach for generation of 3D models from multi-phase CT images. In: Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery. Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress and Exhibition, Barcelona, Spain, June 2008 (CARS 2008). Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2008;3 Suppl 1:S271–S273
   Google Scholar
• Wells WM, Grimson WL, Kikinis R, Jolesz FA. Adaptive segmentation of MRI data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1996; 15: 429–442
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conti F, Khatib O, Baur C, Interactive rendering of deformable objects based on a filling sphere modeling approach. Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2003), Taipei, Taiwan, September 2003. pp 3716–3721
   Google Scholar
• Sala A, Turini G, Ferrari M, Mosca F, Ferrari V, Integration of biomechanical parameters in tetrahedral mass-spring models for virtual surgery simulation. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBS 2011), Boston, MA, August 2011. pp 4550–4554
   Google Scholar
• Schöberl J. NETGEN An advancing front 2D/3D-mesh generator based on abstract rules. Computing and Visualization in Science 1997; 1: 41–52
   Google Scholar
• Conti F, Barbagli F, Morris D, Sewell C, CHAI 3D – An open-source library for the rapid development of haptic scenes. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE World Haptics Conference, Pisa, Italy, March 2005
   Google Scholar
• http://qt.nokia.com
   Google Scholar
• Moore M, Wilhelms J, Collision detection and response for computer animation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH 1988), Atlanta, GA, August 1988. pp 289–298
   Google Scholar
• Breitenstein S, Nocito A, Puhan M, Held U, Weber M, Clavien PA. Robotic- assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a case-matched control study. Ann Surg 2008; 247: 987–993
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satava RM. Virtual reality surgical simulator. The first steps. Surg Endosc 1993; 7: 203–205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beira R, Santos-Carreras L, Sengül A, Samur E, Bleuler H, Clavel R, An external positioning mechanism for robotic surgery. JSME Technical Journal 2011 (In press)
   Google Scholar
• Santos Carreras L, Beira R, Bleuler H. Ergonomic handle for haptic devices. US patent 61/453.972. Filing date 03/18/2011
   Google Scholar
• Paul A. Yushkevich, Joseph Piven, Heather Cody Hazlett, Rachel Gimpel Smith, Sean Ho, James C. Gee, and Guido Gerig. User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: Significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 2006 Jul 1;31(3):1116–28.
   Google Scholar