ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
A reel mechanism-based robotic colonoscope with high safety and maneuverability.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of robotic technologies in lower gastrointestinal tract endoscopy: A systematic review.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2021Article
- Guidelines for Robotic Flexible Endoscopy at the Time of COVID-19.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2021Review
- Frontiers of Robotic Colonoscopy: A Comprehensive Review of Robotic Colonoscopes and Technologies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAt present, the colonoscopy is the most common method of screening for colorectal cancer. However, endoscopists still encounter difficulties with intubation, primarily due to the structural diversity (e.g., path, shape, and size) and viscoelasticity of the colon. Therefore, well-trained, skillful operators are required to overcome these factors and operate colonoscopes without harming patients.
objectivesIn our previous work, we presented a reel mechanism-based robotic colonoscope designed to mitigate the difficulties of conventional colonoscopies. Although we reported excellent mobile performance with respect to the robot, we did not provide an in-depth discussion concerning patient safety. Therefore, in this article, we propose a method of improving robot safety, and this is verified by investigating the static and dynamic forces acting on the colon. In addition, the maneuverability and safety of the robot in the in vitro condition are evaluated.
methodsThe safety solution is provided by covering the robot's legs with silicone. To evaluate the results, the reaction force according to leg deformation is measured. Then, the force transmitted to the colon is also measured when the robot moves through various environments. Finally, a mobility test on an excised porcine colon is performed to simultaneously verify the robot's maneuverability and safety.
resultsWe verify that the static and dynamic force acting on the colon is less than the burst force of a human colon. In addition, the maneuverability of the robotic colonoscope shows reliable locomotion performance even with the soft material covering the legs; it has forward velocities of 9.552 ± 1.940 mm/s on a flat path.
conclusionOwing to the reliable locomotion mechanism with the safety-securing silicone, the robot achieves high and reliable maneuverability without any scratches or perforations to the porcine colon.
Indexed as
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.