medigraphic.com
ISSN 2594-1518 (Electronic)
ISSN 1405-0099 (Print)

2003, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Cir Gen 2003; 25 (4)

Robotic surgery

Carbajal RA

Language: Spanish
References: 39
Page: 314-320
PDF size: 151.65 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To describe the state of art of robotic-assisted surgery, telepresence surgery, an overview of the scientific results obtained to the present, the role played by Mexican surgeons in this development, and a personal view of the future of digitalization of movement.
Data collection: This publication is the result of our work performed in research, as well as the training process undergone in Mexico and the USA, together with biomedical engineers, robotic engineers, researchers, instrument designers, analysts, research administrators, etc.
Results: In 1994, the use of robotic assistants was started in minimal invasive surgery; in 1997, the first patients were operated with a telepresence system; in 1998, the D’Vinci project was started obtaining FDA approval in July 2000; in 2001 the Zeus project was started obtaining FDA approval in September 2002. Since February 2003, a fusion process beytween the two leading world enterprises in robotics has been started. This process, of which we have been witnesses and actors has happened in less than 10 years, during the boom of minimal invasive techniques development. Today, there are almost 150 telepresence robots assisting surgeons all over the world and almost 250,000 surgical interventions have been assisted by robotics.
Conclusion: In the following year we will witness the consolidation of these projects and the development of robotic micro- and nano-manipulation techniques, which will probably find their best expression in genetic engineering.


REFERENCES

  1. Orwell G. 1984 Barcelona: Destinos; 1952.

  2. Gibson W. Neuromante. Madrid: Minotauro; 1984.

  3. Rosheim ME. Robot evolution: the development of anthrobotics. New York: Wiley Interscience; 1994.p.1-36;335-7.

  4. Chimal C. La cibernética. México: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes. (CONACULTA); 1999. p.1-62.

  5. Sackier JM, Wang Y. Robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery. From concept to development. Surg Endosc 1994; 8: 63-6.

  6. Pimentel IK, Teixeira K, eds. Virtual reality: through the new looking glass. New York: Intel, Windcrest, and McGraw-Hill; 1993. p. 1-51.

  7. Rheingold H. Realidad virtual. Madrid: Gedisa; 1994. p. 204-25.

  8. Charniak E, McDermott D, eds. Artificial intelligence. Massachusetts: Addision-Wesley, Reading, 1986. p. 6-8.

  9. Durlach NI, Mavor As, eds. Virtual reality: scientific and technological challenges. Washington: National Academy Press; 1995. p. 111-87.

  10. Wood R, Cochran W. Stereoendoscopy gives surgeons normal vision. Photonic Spectra. Sept. 1993.

  11. Jones DB, Brewer JD, Soper NJ. The influence of three-dimensional video systems on laparoscopic task performance. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1996; 6: 191-7.

  12. van Bergen P, Kunert W, Bessell J, Buess GF. Comparative study or two-dimensional and three-dimensional vision systems for minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc 1998; 12: 948-54.

  13. Mueller MD, Camartin C, Dreher E, Hanggi E. Three-dimensional laparoscopy. Gadget or progress? A randomized trial on the efficacy of three-dunebsuibak laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 1999; 13: 469-72.

  14. Carbajal RA. La cirugía en el tercer milenio. En: Heredia M, Bautista G, Fernández O, Fuentes JL, eds. Cirugía de invasión mínima 2ª ed. México: Intersistemas; 1999; p. 395-400.

  15. Noar MD. Endoscopy simulation: a brave new world? Endoscopy 1991; 23: 147-9.

  16. Satava RM. Virtual reality surgical simulato: The first steps. Surg Endosc 1993; 7: 203-5.

  17. Boppart SA, Deutsch TF, Rattner DW. Optical imaging technology in minimally invasive surgery. Current status and future directions. Surg Endosc 1999; 13: 718-22.

  18. Sackier MJ. Future horizons of minimally access surgery. Probl Gen Surg 1991; 8: 507-10.

  19. Satava RM. High tech surgery: speculations on future directions. In: Hunter JG, Sackier JM, eds. Minimally invasive surgery. Philadelphia: McGraw-Hill; 1993. p. 339-47.

  20. Green PS, Hill JH, Satava RM. Telepresence: dexterous procedures in a virtual operating field. Surg Endosc 1991; 57: 192.

  21. Green SP, Hill JW, Gorfu Y, Jensen JF. Telepresence: advance teleoperator technology for minimally invasive surgery. Proceedings of Medicine Meets Virtual Reality. San Diego CA. June 1-2, 1992.

  22. Sackier J. The next wave in minimally invasive surgery: robotics. Gen Surg Laparosc News. April 1994.

  23. Sackier J. New technology and future directions in endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 1994; 8: 535.

  24. Falcone T, Goldberg J, García-Ruiz A, Margossian H, Stevens L. Full robotic assistance for laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: a case report. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 1999; 9: 107-13.

  25. Green PS, Hill JW, Jensen JF. Telepresence surgery. Proceedings of IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology. May-June 1995.p.324-9.

  26. Green PS, Jensen JF, Hill JW, Shah A. Mobile telepresence surgery. Proceedings of 2° Annual International Symposium. Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. Baltimore, MA Nov 4-7, 1995. p. 97-103.

  27. Satava RM. Medicine 2001. The king is dead. In: Satava M, Morgan K, Sieburg HB, Mattheus R, Christensen JP. Interactive technology and the new paradigm for healthcare. Amsterdam: IOS Press and Ohmsha, 1995; p. 334-9.

  28. Satava R. Cybersurgery: advanced technologies for surgical practice. New York: Wiley-Liss; 1998. p. 99-176.

  29. Schenker P, Kim WS, Bejczy A. Remote robotic operations at 3000 miles-dexterous telemanipulation with time-delay via calibrated virtual reality task display. Proceedings of Medicine Meets Virtual Reality II. San Diego CA. Jun 27-30, 1994.

  30. Himpens J, Leman G, Gadiere GB. Telesurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 1998; 12: 1091.

  31. Marescaus J, Leroy J, Gagner M, Rubino F, Mutter D, Vix M, et al. Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery. Nature 2001; 413: 379-80.

  32. Licini A, Lirici M, Rovetta A. Telerobotic and minimal invasive surgery: feasibility and present limits. Surg Endosc 1994; 8: 535.

  33. Schurr MO, Breitwieser H, Melzer A, Junert W, Schmitt M, Voges V, et al. Experimental telemanipulation in endoscopic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1996; 6: 167-75.

  34. Cubano M, Poulose BK, Tlamini MA, Stewart R, Antosek LE, Lentz R, et al. Long distance telementoring. A novel tool for laparoscopy aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. Surg Endosc 1999; 13: 673-8.

  35. Lewis MA, Bekey GA. Automation and robotics in neurosurgery: prospects and problems. In: Apuzzo ML, ed. Neurosurgery for the third millennium. American Association of Neurological Surgeons; 1992. p. 65-80;91-102.

  36. Ballantyne GH. Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Review of early clinical results. Surg Endosc 2002; 16: 1389-402.

  37. Kassell NF, Hunter J, Graves S. Telepresence in neurosurgery: The integrated remote neurosurgical system. In: Morgan KS, Hoffman HM, Stredney D, Weghorst SJ (eds). Medicine meets virtual reality: Global healthcare grid. IOS Press and Ohmsha, Amsterdam 1997, pags 411-9.

  38. Crandall BC. Nanotechnology: Molecular speculations on global abundance. The MIT Press (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Cambridge, MA. 1996, pags. 1-80.

  39. Schuler G. The human transcript map. Science 1996, 247: 547-62.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com