Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Intelligent Information-Guided Robotic Surgery

Written By

Ryu Nakadate and Makoto Hashizume

Submitted: July 18th, 2018 Reviewed: October 23rd, 2018 Published: November 27th, 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.82191

Chapter metrics overview

1,362 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Laparoscopic surgery is minimally invasive, providing various benefits for patients. On the other hand, it is technically demanding for physicians due to limited dexterity of tools, limited vision. In order to cope with those limitations, recent various engineering technologies are trying to help surgeon. Robotics is one of the major technologies in this field. Until today, da Vinci has been only one such robot. But recently, many other robotic systems are under development. Those new robots are introduced in this chapter first. Other than robotics, or in conjunction with robotics, navigation technologies are getting popularity in clinical use. Navigation is a technology that provides useful information such as preoperative images or distance between tool and lesion, etc. to surgeon. Our experience in clinical use of navigation system in robotic surgery is introduced. Finally, technologies applied for the training of surgeon are introduced and described.


  • robotic surgery
  • navigation surgery
  • computer-aided surgery
  • surgical training
  • endoscope

1. Introduction

In order to access the lesion, large incision on the healthy part of the patient, such as body surface is inevitable in the conventional (so-called open surgery) surgery. One of the modalities of the surgery which tries to minimize the incision on the healthy organ is laparoscopic surgery. The access to the lesion in the abdominal cavity is through several small incisions which sizes are about 5–10 mm. A long, slim camera and surgical devices are inserted from those incisions to the abdominal cavity. The surgeons perform surgical procedures such as incision, dissection, and suturing by manipulating those surgical devices watching a display of camera image. Compared with the conventional open surgery in which the large incision on the patient skin is made, the laparoscopic surgery provides the patients less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stay, which are the major benefits to the patients. On the other hand, the laparoscopic surgery demands high level technical skills of the surgeons because of several reasons. The surgeons lose direct vision, and only two-dimensional indirect vision through the display is available [1]. The indirect vision sometimes takes the sense of orientation and ability of the depth perception away from surgeons. All surgical devices are slim and long. The precise manipulation of the tip of those devices is very difficult. Also the mirror effect, the phenomenon in which the device in the patient body goes opposite direction to the handle outside the body, makes those manipulations more difficult [2]. The surgeons cannot directly touch the organs in the body. Palpation or feeling the applied force is not possible. Most of the surgical devices are straight, do not have bending wrist. Those devices provide surgeon much less dexterity than the fingers and hands. In order to cope with those restrictions, long training time, experience, and practices are required for the laparoscopic surgeons. However, as those limitations are mainly technical issue, we believe the technologies can contribute to overcome those limitations. In this chapter, we introduce recent various technologies for laparoscopic surgery. First, we will overview the current worldwide surgical robotics. There is a dominant player in this field, da Vinci surgical system. However, several new robots by start-ups are in the pipeline. Then, we will introduce the robotics with the flexible endoscope as a new trend in the robotic surgery. They are also in the pipeline of the many companies, about to launch to the market. We think this field is promising as future minimally invasive surgery. After that, the technologies in the navigation and training are described.


2. Robotics for the laparoscopic surgery

In this field, the da Vinci surgical system (Figure 1) [3] of Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (US) has been a dominant robot since its FDA approval in 2000. As of August 1, 2018, 4666 units are installed in the world. Nearly 1 million procedures in the world are performed annually by using da Vinci [4]. Majority of da Vinci applications are urology and gynecology which are about one-third of the total procedures each [4]. Including the colorectal application in the other one-third, you can find that the da Vinci surgery is mostly used in the pelvic cavity. This is probably because pelvic cavity is narrow and deep, thus laparoscopic approach is challenging for those organs such as prostate, uterus, colon, and rectum.

Figure 1.

da Vinci surgical system ©2018 Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

Generally speaking, the robot for laparoscopic surgery provides three-dimensional vision, dexterity, and intuitiveness. In fact, three-dimensional vision is not a robot specific feature. However, it is inevitable in order to exert the robotic dexterity. To understand the dexterity, let us explain the degrees of freedom. For example, in order to perform full dexterity by a grasping device, it requires seven degrees of freedom. First, the tip of the grasper has to be reached at desired position in three-dimensional space (X-Y-Z axis). Therefore, at least three degrees of freedom are required. Then, the tip of the grasper also has to change orientation at the desired position. The orientation is defined by rotations around X, Y, Z axis. Thus, it requires another three (rotational) degrees of freedom. Last, one degree of freedom is open/close motion of the grasper. Conventional laparoscopic forceps have only five degrees of freedom (three positional, one rotational around the shaft, and one grasping), resulting limited dexterity. da Vinci has wrist at the tip of the forceps, providing seven degrees of freedom. This is one of the key technologies of the laparoscopic surgical robot. Intuitiveness means that the operator’s hand and device tip are synchronized in the three-dimensional vision. The computer of the robot calculates the device position, so that the direction of the device movement in the display is the same as surgeon’s hand. Furthermore, the computer calculation is considering the line of sight in order to secure the hand-eye coordination. Those features are basically the same in the other emerging new robots.

There exist a lot of researches on surgical robots in academic institutes. However, sometimes they are very early stage, and it is unknown how long they take time until they reach at clinically usable phase. Here, we will introduce surgical robots which have already been in the market or are in the pipeline of the industrial companies.

2.1 Senhance surgical platform

Senhance surgical robotic system (Figure 2) [5, 6, 7] was originally developed in Europe under the name of “ALF-X”, and then sold to US company TransEnterix, Inc. It received CE mark and cleared FDA for major laparoscopic surgery. The Senhance system has three independent robotic arms for instruments and camera. Each arm stands on the floor, has long beam as seen in Figure 2. Various types of the forceps are available and can be attached to the robotic arms. Unique features which are different from da Vinci are gaze control system of camera and force feedback. At the control cockpit, the eye motion of the operator is monitored and is used for the camera motion. If the operator moves head forward, the camera moves closer to the object. The company claims cost effectiveness as other emerging robot company than intuitive surgical do so [7].

Figure 2.

Senhance surgical robotic system (©2018 TransEnterix, Inc.).

2.2 Versius surgical robotic system

Versius surgical robotics system (CMR Surgical Ltd., UK) also contains independent robotic arms for each instruments, but the size of the robotic arms are designed smaller (Figure 3). As the foot print of each robotic arm is 38 × 38 cm, it is portable, does not require large space, and setting up is easy. Comparing with 8 mm da Vinci instrument, CMR provides thinner, 5.8 mm instrument with wrist. It is under development, and not yet CE Marked nor 510(k) cleared.

Figure 3.

Versius surgical robotic system (©2018 CMR Surgical Ltd., UK).

2.3 Verb surgical

Johnson & Johnson (Ethicon) and Google (Verily Life Sciences) have jointly established Verb Surgical Inc. (US). Their goal is not only robotics but also visualization, advanced instrumentation, data analytics, and connectivity. The details of the appearance of the robot, function, cost, etc. have not been published.

2.4 MiroSurge system

German aerospace center (DLR) developed MiroSurge system (Figure 4) [8, 9]. It also has independent, light weight, and compact robotic arms for each instrument, which could be fixed directly on the operating bed. Force feedback feature is implemented to the instruments. Unique feature is that the operator can move the robotic arm directly by hand touching the arm. By using this function, for example, an assistant operator can easily make a room at bed side. Medtronic is licensed this robot.

Figure 4.

MiroSurge system. Reprinted by permission from Springer Nature: Springer Nature [8].

2.5 da Vinci SP

da Vinci SP (Intuitive Surgical) is a single port surgical system [10, 11, 12, 13]. A camera and three 6-mm instruments are bundled inside a 25-mm cannula. Thus, they can be inserted into the patient body from single incision. Each instrument has seven degrees of freedom, including “elbow” and “shoulder”. The camera also has multi-bending neck, so that the camera head movement is independent of instruments, and operator can look down the devices. Although initial position of the instruments inside the cannula is straight, the “elbow” and “shoulder” make triangulation possible inside the body. It has cleared FDA for urologic procedures. The other applications which the company is aiming at are rectum [11], laryngeal [12, 13] (through natural orifice), and other abdominal procedures.

2.6 SPORT surgical system

SPORT surgical system (TITAN Medical, Canada) is also a single port surgical system. It has two articulating instruments and a camera, in a cannula (Figure 5). It is under development, and the company expects its FDA clearance in 2019.

Figure 5.

SPORT surgical system. Reprinted by permission from Springer Nature: Springer Nature [14].

2.7 Endoscope holding robot

In the history of the surgical robot, AESOP (Computer Motion, Inc., US) [15], an endoscope holding robot, was one of the pioneers, which was launched in 1994. Although AESOP discontinued, there are some new camera holding robots. Their purpose is mainly to solve the issue of human resources in hospital. Viky (EndoControl, France) [16] is a compact camera holder which can be mounted on the operation bed (Figure 6). Freehand (Freehand 2010 Ltd., UK) [17] is also mounted on bed. SoloAssist (AKTORmed, Germany) [18], MTG-H100 (Hiwin Technologies Corp, Taiwan), and EMARO (Riverfield Inc., Japan) stands on the floor. Various control methods are employed, such as voice, head movement, and joystick.

Figure 6.

Viky, reprinted by permission from Springer Nature: Springer Nature [16].


3. Robotics for the flexible endoscopic surgery

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) was introduced in 2004 [19]. It is the surgery using flexible endoscope instead of rigid laparoscope. As access to the lesion is through the natural orifice (mouth and anus), no incision on the patient skin, but on the organ inside body such as gastrointestinal wall instead is required. Conventional flexible endoscopes and instruments were not enough effective to perform this surgical procedure. So, several companies developed multi-tasking platform [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25] (Figure 7). They basically contain flexible endoscope, articulating instruments, and grasping and cutting devices. They were not motorized, but manually actuated using wire transmission. However, NOTES is still in the experimental phase because this procedure was still technically difficult even using those platforms. Most of those platforms are discontinued. However, if new, effective device were introduced in the future, NOTES could be clinically accepted.

Figure 7.

Examples of manually driven multi-tasking platform. (A) ANUBISCOPE (IRCAD & Karl Storz Endoskope), reprinted by permission from Springer Nature: Springer Nature [26]. (B) EndoSAMURAI (Olympus, Japan), reprinted by permission from Springer Nature: Springer Nature [27].

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is another surgical procedure using flexible endoscope [28, 29]. ESD is applied only for gastrointestinal mucosal cancer. Therefore, it has limited coverage of organ compared with NOTES. ESD has been clinically accepted and prevailing especially in Asian countries. Although ESD procedure is easier than NOTES, it still requires high skill of flexible endoscope and long training time like laparoscopy [30, 31]. Some of the recent robotic surgical systems for flexible endoscope are aiming at ESD procedure.

In this section, recent surgical robots for flexible endoscope are introduced. At present, there is no major robot in this field. But many are under development or just have been launched. We believe flexible endoscope surgery will be next major target of surgical robot industry.


ANUBISCOPE (IRCAD & Karl Storz Endoskope) [20, 21] was developed for NOTES and ESD procedure. The system composed of a custom made flexible endoscope with two articulating instruments. It was not motor driven but manually driven system. Strasburg University jointly developed motorized version, STRAS with Karl Storz and IRCAD [32, 33, 34, 35]. By using vision computation technology, they applied automated target tracking [32] and position detection of the instruments [33]. This project is still in the phase of academic research. Some animal trials have been carried out [34, 35].

3.2 Endomaster

Endomaster (Endomaster Pte Ltd., Singapore) has also two articulating robotic instruments. It has “shoulder” and “elbow” joints in its instruments instead that all other platforms have consecutive bending section. The prototype (Figure 8) uses a conventional two channel endoscope but latest version uses custom made endoscope. This company is a spin-off of Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. HOYA Corporation, Japan, one of the endoscope manufacturers joined the project. It is still under development. ESD, endoscopic full thickness dissection, NOTES trials in animal model, and a human trial have been carried out [36, 37, 38, 39, 40].

Figure 8.

EndoMaster prototype, reprinted by permission from Springer Nature: Springer Nature [36].

3.3 Medrobotics

Flex robotic system (Medrobotics Corporation, US) has also two 4-mm articulating arm and endoscope (Figure 9). Unique feature is the snake-like endoscope [41, 42, 43, 44]. By using two sets of shape-locking sheath, the endoscope can move follow-the-leader manner like snake. As the length of the endoscope is short, it can be applied for larynx, rectum from natural orifice, and percutaneously abdominal cavity. Flex robotic system has already cleared FDA for colorectal surgery.

Figure 9.

Flex robotic system, reprinted by permission from Springer Nature: Springer Nature [41].

3.4 K-Flex

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), South Korea has been developing K-Flex [45]. Two 3.7-mm articulating instruments and an endoscope are in a flexible sheath. The sheath has wire driven bending section at the end. This bending section has two independently controllable bending parts, so that view angle can be changed. They established a spin-off company, EasyEndo Surgical Inc., to commercialize this system.

3.5 Monarch platform

Auris Health, Inc. (US) is a potential company which can develop flexible endoscopic robot [46]. They have already cleared FDA and launched the Monarch platform in 2018, which is a bronchoscopy treatment robot. They previously acquired Hansen Medical, which had technology for bending catheter for cardiovascular use. At the moment, they focus on lung treatment.

3.6 Kyushu University ESD robot

We have also been developing flexible endoscopic platforms for ESD in manually driven version [47, 48] (Figure 10) and motorized version [49] (Figure 11). They composed of conventional flexible endoscope, two 2.6-mm articulating instruments, and an additional channel. By using standard endoscope for ESD, total system cost is minimized. The diameter of instruments is very thin because the standard endoscope has 2.8 mm channel. Control part on a stand is designed, so that both handles of the instruments and endoscope are close to the operator. Animal experiments have been carried out [47, 48].

Figure 10.

ESD platform (manually driven) of Kyushu University, Japan.

Figure 11.

ESD platform (motorized) of Kyushu University, Japan.


4. Other robotic application

4.1 Teleoperation

Telesurgery is one of the possible applications of surgical robot for the purpose of medicine in rural area, space, and battle field. In principle of surgical robot, master controller (operator site) and surgical robot (patient site) are connected only by signal. So even if the whole system is in a room like da Vinci, they are teleoperation robot in nature. In the case of long distance between operator site and patient site, delay in the signal transmission is not negligible. Therefore, fast transmission lines are chosen and employed. Marescaux et al. demonstrated telesurgery experiment on human patient between US and France [50]. We also have also successfully carried out animal telesurgery experiments several times between Japan and Korea, Japan and Thailand by using our own robot system (Figure 12) [51, 52]. In this study, we have employed relatively low cost ISDN line and low latency CODEC technology.

Figure 12.

(Left) Master console (right) patient site of the teleoperation robot.

4.2 MRI compatible robot

Anatomy identification is sometimes difficult during laparoscopic surgery. If surgeon can see vessel, nerve, and lesion under the organ surface, it will be strong merit for safety and quality of the operation. For this purpose, we used intraoperative open bore type MRI for real-time image acquisition and developed a laparoscopic surgical robot which can be placed inside the MRI gantry (Figure 13) [53]. As MRI has strong magnetic field, no magnetic metal such as stainless steel cannot be used. Our robot was made of mainly engineering plastic and titanium alloy. Also, we chose ultrasonic motors instead of magnetic motors. The system consists of two forceps and a camera. Additionally, needle insertion device can be attached. The surgeon console display shows the camera view, pre-operative MR image, and intraoperative real-time MR image. We have successfully demonstrated animal experiment by live porcine model.

Figure 13.

MRI image-guided surgical system, reprinted by permission from Springer Nature: Springer Nature [53].


5. Navigation

Navigation in surgery includes various techniques. In brain and ENT surgery where the organ deformation are relatively small, the navigation system which detects the real-time position of the instrument in the preoperative three-dimensional image by using optical position sensors is often used. In laparoscopic surgery, as the organ movement is large, such precise position detection is not required. But sometimes surgeon requires to refer to the segmented preoperative image during the procedure in order to confirm anatomical structure. The problem was that it is very difficult to compare current two-dimensional camera image and preoperative three-dimensional image. In order to solve this problem, we have developed real-time viewer software and sensor system especially for da Vinci partial nephrectomy (Figure 14) [54, 55]. This system detects the robot camera angle by position sensor mounted to the da Vinci arm by our own attachment (because da Vinci does not allow to output such data). According to the camera angle, the system computes corresponding view in the three-dimensional preoperative image and displays at the small sub-display under the main display. By this navigation system, the surgeon can see the preoperative image in the same angle of current camera image. We found it very useful, and it is clinically used every time in our hospital.

Figure 14.

Navigation system for da Vinci surgery.


6. Training

Training in laparoscopic surgery is important for surgeons. Also, studies about effective training method are important for better learning curve. There are many surgical simulators using computer graphics, rubber phantom, and harvested animal organ. However, measuring surgical skill quantitatively was very difficult. Quantification of skill is important not only for qualifying each surgeon but also for evaluating the effectiveness of training method. We have developed a suture simulator and evaluation software (Figure 15) [56, 57]. The phantom mimicking small intestine, made of four layers and string braided rubber, is used for the task. The task is anastomosis of the defect on the intestine by three interrupted sutures. The result is evaluated by five category including completion time, air leakage test, etc. The trainees can be fed back each time by score. Scoring system was developed using data previously obtained from skilled surgeons performing suture on this phantom. By using this simulator, significant difference between the trainees’ scores before and after training was observed [57].

Figure 15.

Training simulator.


7. Conclusion

In this chapter, we introduced current and near future available laparoscopic/flexible endoscopic surgical robots, examples of other advanced robotic applications, and technology of navigation and training.


Conflict of interest

Ryu Nakadate and Makoto Hashizume received researching fund from Hogy Medical Co Ltd., Japan. This work was partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 16H03195.


  1. 1. Jourdan IC, Dutson E, Garcia A, Vleugels T, Leroy J, Mutter D, et al. Stereoscopic vision provides a significant advantage for precision robotic laparoscopy. British Journal of Surgery. 2004;91:879-885. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.4549
  2. 2. Gallagher AG, McClure N, McGuigan J, Ritchie K, Sheehy NP. An ergonomic analysis of the fulcrum effect in the acquisition of endoscopic skills. Endoscopy. 1998;30:617-620. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1001366
  3. 3. Guthart GS, Salisbury JK. The Intuitive/sup TM/telesurgery system: Overview and application. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA2000); San Francisco. 2000. pp. 618-621. DOI: 10.1109/ROBOT.2000.844121
  4. 4. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Investor Presentation August 2018 [Internet]. 2018. Available from: [Accessed: 14-09-2018]
  5. 5. Gueli Alletti S, Perrone E, Cianci S, Rossitto C, Monterossi G, Bernardini F, et al. 3 mm Senhance robotic hysterectomy: A step towards future perspectives. Journal of Robotic Surgery. 2018;12:575-577. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-018-0778-5
  6. 6. Hutchins AR, Manson RJ, Lerebours R, Farjat AE, Cox ML, Mann BP, et al. Objective assessment of the early stages of the learning curve for the senhance surgical robotic system. Journal of Surgical Education. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.06.026
  7. 7. Rossitto C, Alletti SG, Romano F, Fiore A, Coretti S, Oradei M, et al. Use of robot-specific resources and operating room times: The case of Telelap Alf-X robotic hysterectomy. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. 2016;12:613-619. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1724
  8. 8. Hagn U, Konietschke R, Tobergte A, Nickl M, Jörg S, Kübler B, et al. DLR MiroSurge: A versatile system for research in endoscopic telesurgery. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery. 2010;5:183-193. DOI: 10.1007/s11548-009-0372-4
  9. 9. Konietschke R, Hagn U, Nickl M, Jorg S, Tobergte A, Passig G, et al. The DLR MiroSurge—A robotic system for surgery. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA2009); Kobe. 2009. pp. 1589-1590. DOI: 10.1109/ROBOT.2009.5152361
  10. 10. Ramirez D, Maurice MJ, Kaouk JH. Robotic single-port surgery: Paving the way for the future. Urology. 2016;95:5-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.05.013
  11. 11. Marks J, Ng S, Mak T. Robotic transanal surgery (RTAS) with utilization of a next-generation single-port system: A cadaveric feasibility study. Techniques in Coloproctology. 2017;21:541-545. DOI: 10.1007/s10151-017-1655-3
  12. 12. Tateya I, Koh YW, Tsang RK, Hong SS, Uozumi R, Kishimoto Y, et al. Flexible next-generation robotic surgical system for transoral endoscopic hypopharyngectomy: A comparative preclinical study. Head & Neck. 2018;40:16-23. DOI: 10.1002/hed.24868
  13. 13. Chen MM, Orosco RK, Lim GC, Holsinger FC. Improved transoral dissection of the tongue base with a next-generation robotic surgical system. The Laryngoscope. 2018;128:78-83. DOI: 10.1002/lary.26649
  14. 14. Peters BS, Armijo PR, Krause C, et al. Review of emerging surgical robotic technology. Surgical Endoscopy. 2018;32:1636-1655. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6079-2
  15. 15. Mettler L, Ibrahim M, Jonat W. One year of experience working with the aid of a robotic assistant (the voice-controlled optic holder AESOP) in gynaecological endoscopic surgery. Human Reproduction. 1998;13:2748-2750. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/13.10.2748
  16. 16. Gumbs AA, Croner R, Rodriguez A, Zuker N, Perrakis A, Gayet B. 200 Consecutive laparoscopic pancreatic resections performed with a robotically controlled laparoscope holder. Surgical Endoscopy. 2013;27:3781-3791. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-2969-5
  17. 17. Stolzenburg J-U, Franz T, Kallidonis P, Minh D, Dietel A, Hicks J, et al. Comparison of the FreeHand® robotic camera holder with human assistants during endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. BJU International. 2011;107:970-974. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09656.x
  18. 18. Ohmura Y, Nakagawa M, Suzuki H, Kotani K, Teramoto A. Feasibility and usefulness of a joystick-guided robotic scope holder (soloassist) in laparoscopic surgery. Visceral Medicine. 2018;34:37-44. DOI: 10.1159/000485524
  19. 19. Kalloo AN, Singh VK, Jagannath SB, Niiyama H, Hill SL, Vaughn CA, et al. Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: A novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2004;60:114-117
  20. 20. Dallemagne B, Marescaux J. The ANUBISTM project. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies. 2010;19:257-261. DOI: 10.3109/13645706.2010.514741
  21. 21. Perretta S, Dallemagne B, Barry B, Marescaux J. The ANUBISCOPE® flexible platform ready for prime time: Description of the first clinical case. Surgical Endoscopy. 2013;27:2630-2630. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-2818-6
  22. 22. Spaun GO, Zheng B, Martinec DV, Cassera MA, Dunst CM, Swanström LL. Bimanual coordination in natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: Comparing the conventional dual-channel endoscope, the R-Scope, and a novel direct-drive system. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2009;69:e39-e45. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.12.239
  23. 23. Thompson CC, Ryou M, Soper NJ, Hungess ES, Rothstein RI, Swanstrom LL. Evaluation of a manually driven, multitasking platform for complex endoluminal and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery applications (with video). Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2009;70:121-125. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.11.007
  24. 24. Spaun GO, Zheng B, Swanström LL. A multitasking platform for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): A benchtop comparison of a new device for flexible endoscopic surgery and a standard dual-channel endoscope. Surgical Endoscopy. 2009;23:2720. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-009-0476-5
  25. 25. Ikeda K, Sumiyama K, Tajiri H, Yasuda K, Kitano S. Evaluation of a new multitasking platform for endoscopic full-thickness resection. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2011;73:117-122. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.09.016
  26. 26. Diana M, Chung H, Liu KH, et al. Endoluminal surgical triangulation: Overcoming challenges of colonic endoscopic submucosal dissections using a novel flexible endoscopic surgical platform: Feasibility study in a porcine model. Surgical Endoscopy. 2013;27:4130-4135. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-3049-6
  27. 27. Fuchs KH, Breithaupt W. Transgastric small bowel resection with the new multitasking platform EndoSAMURAI™ for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. Surgical Endoscopy. 2012;26:2281-2287. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2173-z
  28. 28. Gotoda T, Kondo H, Ono H, Saito Y, Yamaguchi H, Saito D, et al. A new endoscopic mucosal resection procedure using an insulation-tipped electrosurgical knife for rectal flat lesions: Report of two cases. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 1999;50:560-563. DOI: 10.1016/S0016-5107(99)70084-2
  29. 29. Yahagi N, Fujishiro M, Kakushima N, Kobayashi K, Hashimoto T, Oka M, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer using the tip of an electrosurgical snare (thin type). Digestive Endoscopy. 2004;16:34-38. DOI: 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2004.00313.x
  30. 30. Deprez PH, Bergman JJ, Meisner S, Ponchon T, Repici A, Dinis-Ribeiro M, et al. Current practice with endoscopic submucosal dissection in Europe: Position statement from a panel of experts. Endoscopy. 2010;42:853-858. DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1255563
  31. 31. Fukami N. What we want for ESD is a second hand! Traction method. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2013;78:274-276. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.04.192
  32. 32. Ott L, Nageotte F, Zanne P, de Mathelin M. Robotic assistance to flexible endoscopy by physiological-motion tracking. IEEE Transactions on Robotics. 2011;27:346-359. DOI: 10.1109/TRO.2010.2098623
  33. 33. Cabras P, Goyard D, Nageotte F, Zanne P, Doignon C. Comparison of methods for estimating the position of actuated instruments in flexible endoscopic surgery. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS2014); Chicago. 2014. pp. 3522-3528. DOI: 10.1109/IROS.2014.6943054
  34. 34. Zorn L, Nageotte F, Zanne P, Legner A, Dallemagne B, Marescaux J, et al. A novel telemanipulated robotic assistant for surgical endoscopy: Preclinical application to ESD. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering. 2018;65:797-808. DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2017.2720739
  35. 35. Légner A, Diana M, Halvax P, Liu Y-Y, Zorn L, Zanne P, et al. Endoluminal surgical triangulation 2.0: A new flexible surgical robot. Preliminary pre-clinical results with colonic submucosal dissection. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. 2017;13:e1819. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1819
  36. 36. Chiu PWY, Phee SJ, Wang Z, Sun Z, Poon CC, Yamamoto T, et al. Feasibility of full-thickness gastric resection using master and slave transluminal endoscopic robot and closure by overstitch: A preclinical study. Surgical Endoscopy. 2014;28:319-324. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-3149-3
  37. 37. Phee LS, Ho KY, Shabbir A, Low SC, Huynh VA, Kencana AP, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric lesions using a through-the-scope intuitively controlled robotics-enhanced manipulator system. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2009;69:AB163. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.03.291
  38. 38. Phee SJ, Ho KY, Lomanto D, Low SC, Huynh VA, Kencana AP, et al. Natural orifice transgastric endoscopic wedge hepatic resection in an experimental model using an intuitively controlled master and slave transluminal endoscopic robot (MASTER). Surgical Endoscopy. 2010;24:2293-2298. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-010-0955-8
  39. 39. Phee SJ, Reddy N, Chiu PWY, Rebala P, Rao GV, Wang Z, et al. Robot-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection is effective in treating patients with early-stage gastric neoplasia. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2012;10:1117-1121. DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.05.019
  40. 40. Tay G, Tan H-K, Nguyen TK, Phee SJ, Iyer NG. Use of the EndoMaster robot-assisted surgical system in transoral robotic surgery: A cadaveric study. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. 2018;14:e1930. DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1930
  41. 41. Remacle M, M. N. Prasad V, Lawson G, Plisson L, Bachy V, Van der Vorst S. Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) with the medrobotics FlexTM system: First surgical application on humans. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2015;272:1451-1455. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-015-3532-x
  42. 42. Funk E, Goldenberg D, Goyal N. Demonstration of transoral robotic supraglottic laryngectomy and total laryngectomy in cadaveric specimens using the medrobotics flex system. Head & Neck. 2017;39:1218-1225. DOI: 10.1002/hed.24746
  43. 43. Atallah S, Hodges A, Larach SW. Direct target NOTES: Prospective applications for next generation robotic platforms. Techniques in Coloproctology. 2018;22:363-371. DOI: 10.1007/s10151-018-1788-z
  44. 44. Rivera-Serrano CM, Johnson P, Zubiate B, Kuenzler R, Choset H, Zenati M, et al. A transoral highly flexible robot. The Laryngoscope. 2012;122:1067-1071. DOI: 10.1002/lary.23237
  45. 45. Hwang M, Kwon D-S. Strong continuum manipulator for flexible endoscopic surgery. In: Proceedings of 10th Hamlyn Symposium on Medical Robotics (HSMR2017); London. 2017. pp. 63-64
  46. 46. Auris Health. Inc. [Internet]. 2018. Available from: [Accessed: 14-09-2018]
  47. 47. Nakadate R, Nakamura S, Moriyama T, Kenmotsu H, Oguri S, Arata J, et al. Gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection using novel 2.6 mm articulating devices: An ex vivo comparative and in vivo feasibility study. Endoscopy. 2015;47:820-824. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1391438
  48. 48. Okamoto Y, Nakadate R, Nakamura S, Arata J, Oguri S, Moriyama T, et al. Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using novel articulating devices: A comparative study in a live porcine model. Surgical Endoscopy. 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6408-5
  49. 49. Iwasa T, Nakadate R, Onogi S, Okamoto Y, Arata J, Oguri S, et al. A new robotic-assisted flexible endoscope with single-hand control: Endoscopic submucosal dissection in the ex vivo porcine stomach. Surgical Endoscopy. 2018;32:3386-3392. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6188-y
  50. 50. Marescaux J, Leroy J, Gagner M, Rubino F, Mutter D, Vix M, et al. Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery. Nature. 2001;413:379-380. DOI: 10.1038/35096636
  51. 51. Arata J, Takahashi H, Pitakwatchara P, Warisawa S, Tanoue K, Konishi K, et al. A remote surgery experiment between Japan and Thailand over Internet using a low latency CODEC system. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA2007); Roma. 2007. pp. 953-959. DOI: 10.1109/ROBOT.2007.363108
  52. 52. Arata J, Takahashi H, Yasunaka S, Onda K, Tanaka K, Sugita N, et al. Impact of network time-delay and force feedback on tele-surgery. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery. 2008;3:371-378. DOI: 10.1007/s11548-008-0228-3
  53. 53. Hashizume M, Yasunaga T, Tanoue K, Ieiri S, Konishi K, Kishi K, et al. New real-time MR image-guided surgical robotic system for minimally invasive precision surgery. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery. 2008;2:317-325. DOI: 10.1007/s11548-007-0146-9
  54. 54. Kobayashi S, Cho B, Tatsugami K, Hashizume M, Eto M. Surgical navigation using intuitive image-to-patient registration for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: Clinical feasibility study. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery. 2017;12:S263-S264. DOI: 10.1007/s11548-017-1588-3
  55. 55. Kobayashi S, Cho B, Tatsugami K, Hashizume M, Eto M. Surgical navigation using intuitive image-to-patient registration for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: Clinical feasibility study. Journal of Endourology. 2017;31(S2):V3-V6. DOI: 10.1089/end.2017.29029.abstracts
  56. 56. Uemura M, Yamashita M, Tomikawa M, Obata S, Souzaki R, Ieiri S, et al. Objective assessment of the suture ligature method for the laparoscopic intestinal anastomosis model using a new computerized system. Surgical Endoscopy. 2015;29:444-452. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3681-9
  57. 57. Takeoka T, Takiguchi S, Uemura M, Miyazaki Y, Takahashi T, Kurokawa Y, et al. Assessment potential of a new suture simulator in laparoscopic surgical skills training. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies. 2017;26:338-345. DOI: 10.1080/13645706.2017.1312456

Written By

Ryu Nakadate and Makoto Hashizume

Submitted: July 18th, 2018 Reviewed: October 23rd, 2018 Published: November 27th, 2018