ArticleJournal of medical devices2017
Disposable Fluidic Actuators for Miniature In-Vivo Surgical Robotics.
Article in Journal of medical devices, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancements and challenges in autonomous endovascular interventional robotics: A comprehensive review.iScience · 2025Review
- A Novel Hydraulic Actuation System Utilizing Magnetorheological Fluids for Single-Port Laparoscopic Surgery Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Soft Robotics in Minimally Invasive Surgery.Soft robotics · 2019Article
- Disposable Fluidic Actuators for Miniature In-Vivo Surgical Robotics.Journal of medical devices · 2017Article
- Hydraulic Robotic Surgical Tool Changing Manipulator.Journal of medical devices · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fusion of robotics and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has created new opportunities to develop diagnostic and therapeutic tools. Surgical robotics is advancing from externally actuated systems to miniature in-vivo robotics. However, with miniaturization of electric-motor-driven surgical robots, there comes a trade-off between the size of the robot and its capability. Slow actuation, low load capacity, sterilization difficulties, leaking electricity and transferring produced heat to tissues, and high cost are among the key limitations of the use of electric motors in in-vivo applications. Fluid power in the form of hydraulics or pneumatics has a long history in driving many industrial devices and could be exploited to circumvent these limitations. High power density and good compatibility with the in-vivo environment are the key advantages of fluid power over electric motors when it comes to in-vivo applications. However, fabrication of hydraulic/pneumatic actuators within the desired size and pressure range required for in-vivo surgical robotic applications poses new challenges. Sealing these types of miniature actuators at operating pressures requires obtaining very fine surface finishes which is difficult and costly. The research described here presents design, fabrication, and testing of a hydraulic/pneumatic double-acting cylinder, a limited-motion vane motor, and a balloon-actuated laparoscopic grasper. These actuators are small, seal-less, easy to fabricate, disposable, and inexpensive, thus ideal for single-use in-vivo applications. To demonstrate the ability of these actuators to drive robotic joints, they were modified and integrated in a robotic arm. The design and testing of this surgical robotic arm are presented to validate the concept of fluid-power actuators for in-vivo applications.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.