Article Search
검색
검색 팝업 닫기

Metrics

Help

  • 1. Aims and Scope

    Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE

  • 2. Editorial Board

    Editor-in-Chief + MORE

    Editor-in-Chief
    Yong Chan Lee Professor of Medicine
    Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory
    Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco
    San Francisco, USA

    Deputy Editor

    Deputy Editor
    Jong Pil Im Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    Robert S. Bresalier University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
    Steven H. Itzkowitz Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA
  • 3. Editorial Office
  • 4. Articles
  • 5. Instructions for Authors
  • 6. File Download (PDF version)
  • 7. Ethical Standards
  • 8. Peer Review

    All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
    The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.

    The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.

Search

Search

Year

to

Article Type

Original Article

Split Viewer

A Pilot Study of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Using an Endoscopic Assistive Robot in a Porcine Stomach Model

Byung Gon Kim1 , Hyuk Soon Choi2, Sei Hoon Park1, Jun Ho Hong1, Jung Min Lee2, Seung Han Kim2, Hoon Jai Chun2, Daehie Hong1 , Bora Keum2

1Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea University, and 2Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Institute of Gastrointestinal Medical Instrument Research, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to: Daehie Honga and Bora Keumb
aDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Korea
Tel: +82-2-3290-3369, Fax: +82-2-926-9290, E-mail: dhhong@korea.ac.kr
bDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, 73 Inchon-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Korea
Tel: +82-2-920-6555, Fax: +82-2-953-1943, E-mail: borakeum@korea.ac.kr
Byung Gon Kim and Hyuk Soon Choi contributed equally to this work as first authors.

Received: August 21, 2018; Revised: October 1, 2018; Accepted: October 15, 2018

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Gut Liver 2019;13(4):402-408. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl18370

Published online July 15, 2019, Published date July 15, 2019

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Background/Aims

Endoscopic assistive devices have been developed to reduce the complexity and improve the safety of surgeries involving the use of endoscopes. We developed an assistive robotic arm for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and evaluated its efficiency and safety in this in vitro pilot study.

Methods

ESD was performed using an auxiliary transluminal endoscopic robot. An in vitro test bed replicating the intra-abdominal environment and pig stomachs were used for the experiment. Participants were divided into skilled operators and unskilled operators. Each group performed ESD 10 times by using both conventional and robot-assisted methods. The perforation incidence, operation time, and resected mucous membrane size were measured.

Results

For the conventional method, significant differences were noted between skilled and unskilled operators regarding operation time (11.3 minutes vs 26.7 minutes) and perforation incidence (0/10 vs 6/10). Unskilled operators showed a large decrease in the perforation incidence with the robot-assisted method (conventional method vs robot-assisted method, 6/10 vs 1/10). However, the operation time did not differ between the conventional and robot-assisted methods. On the other hand, skilled operators did not show differences in the operation time and perforation incidence between the conventional and robot-assisted methods. Among both skilled and unskilled operators, the operation time decreased with the robot-assisted method as the experiment proceeded.

Conclusions

The surgical safety of unskilled operators greatly improved with robotic assistance. Thus, our assistive robotic arm was beneficial for ESD. Our findings suggest that endoscopic assistive robots have positive effects on surgical safety.

Keywords: Endoscopic mucosal resection, Endoscopy, Pilot projects, Surgery, computer-assisted

Currently, studies on minimally invasive surgery involving endoscopes are being actively performed worldwide.14 Among various surgeries involving the use of endoscopes, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an effective surgical method for early gastrointestinal neoplasms.5,6 However, ESD requires experienced and highly skilled doctors because of the elaborate procedure and relatively limited degrees of freedom (DOFs) of endoscopes for performing required complex movements.7,8 Globally, various assistive devices have been developed to reduce the difficulty of highly complex endoscopic surgeries, such as ESD, and to employ endoscopes as useful surgical equipment.914 These devices include EndoSamurai (Olympus Medical Systems Corp., Tokyo, Japan), EndoMaster (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore), Anubis (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany), and ViaCath (Hansen Medical, Mountain View, CA, USA).1521 Moreover, studies on surgeries performed by unskilled operators using assistive robots are being conducted.22

Our research team developed a revolute joint-based auxiliary transluminal endoscopic robot (REXTER) for ESD. As an endoscopic assistive robot, REXTER can be attached or detached from an existing general-use endoscope. REXTER also enables complex movements by providing an additional range of motion. In the present study, we assessed the characteristics of REXTER and conducted an in vitro pilot test to evaluate the efficiency of REXTER.

The present study was approved by the Laboratory Animal Research Center of Korea University College of Medicine (IRB number: KOREA 2017-0056).

1. Endoscopic submucosal dissection

We conducted a comparative study by using a conventional method and a robot-assisted method to verify the feasibility and safety of robot-assisted ESD. First, marking dots were made in the area around a lesion (diameter, 3 to 5 cm) by using an electrosurgical dual knife (Olympus), and the mucous layer was lifted from the muscular layer by using saline solution and a 23-gauge injection needle. Next, circumferential precutting of the marked area was performed using the dual knife along the marking dots (Fig. 1A–C). An electrosurgical unit (ERBE VIO-300D; Erbe Elektromedizin, Tübingen, Germany) was used during all procedures. These procedures were identically performed for both ESD methods. Following the procedures, only the endoscope and dual knife were used to dissect the submucosal layer in the conventional method, whereas the assistive robot was used in the robot-assisted method (Fig. 1D–G). After surgery, the dissected mucous tissue was collected (Fig. 1H). The perforation incidence in the serosal layer during surgery was considered a standard to determine surgical safety. The operation time and dissected tissue area were recorded to evaluate the efficiency of the surgery.

2. Revolute joint-based auxiliary transluminal endoscopic robot

In this study, REXTER, an endoscopic, detachable, assistive robot, was developed to increase the efficiency and safety of ESD. During dissection of the submucosal layer of a lesion, the membrane dissected in the initial stage of surgery hides the area that must be subsequently dissected, thereby making it difficult to dissect the submucosal layer as the surgery proceeds (Fig. 1C). This factor can complicate ESD. Although skilled operators can complete the surgery with gravity, cap and superior dexterity after gaining adequate clinical experience, unskilled operators find it challenging to complete the surgery when the area intended for dissection cannot be identified. During ESD, REXTER provides operators with increased visibility of the dissection area as it lifts the mucosal flap dissected earlier. Therefore, operators can perform ESD while accurately identifying the dissection area until the end of the surgery.

REXTER includes a robot arm, actuator housing, and interface console (Fig. 2A). The robot arm can be installed at the distal end of a general-use endoscope (GIF-2T240; Olympus) when needed and uninstalled after use (Fig. 2B). This feature makes REXTER convenient to apply in a clinical environment and distinguishes it from other endoscopic surgical robots. The robotic arm has two links (15 mm each) considering the size of the mucosal layer for dissection and has 4 DOFs to enable complex movements required for surgery. The operation of REXTER is based on a tendon-sheath mechanism (TSM), which is an appropriate system in a medical robot.23 The TSM is a power transmission system that controls the joints of a robot with a cable when the actuator and robot joint are separated.24 The actuator housing is equipped with a motor, controller, and power supply unit. The interface console is used by the surgical assistant to operate REXTER.

3. Participant classification

Participants were divided into the following groups (n=3, each) to understand the specific effects of the robot-assisted method: skilled group (skilled operators with at least 5 years and 500 cases of experience in ESD) and unskilled group (unskilled operators with less than 3 months and 10 cases of experience in ESD). Each group performed ESD 10 times using each surgical method (conventional and robot-assisted methods). Consequently, in vitro tests were conducted 40 times. One assistant helped with the operation of REXTER. The experimental environment is shown in Fig. 3A.

4. Sample preparation

A total of 40 pig stomachs were used in this study. The pigs were bred in a Korean farm for 6 months and weighed approximately 110 kg each. All stomachs were immediately extracted after killing the pigs on the date of the experiment. The stomachs were refrigerated for 3 hours until the start of the experiment, and remnant food items in the stomachs were removed before the experiment.

5. In vitro test bed

In this study, a specifically designed in vitro test bed was used to replicate the endoscope-based surgical environment. An external case was created using nontransparent black acryl that blocks light to replicate an intra-abdominal darkroom environment. Within the case, the slope of the stomach could be adjusted to three levels. The stomach was placed on a panel inside the case, and the esophageal region was connected to a tube that was fixed in the case (Fig. 3B).

With the conventional method, skilled and unskilled operators showed notable differences in terms of surgical safety and efficiency.

In the skilled group, the conventional and robot-assisted methods did not cause perforation. The mean operation time was not significantly different between the conventional and robot-assisted methods (11.3±4.8 and 11.2±4.0 minutes, respectively). However, with the robot-assisted method, the operation time decreased as the experiment proceeded (Table 1).

In the unskilled group, perforations occurred in six of 10 tests with the conventional method and in one of 10 tests with the robot-assisted method. Thus, surgical safety improved in unskilled operators with robotic assistance. Similar to the findings in the skilled group, the mean operation time was not significantly different between the conventional and robot-assisted methods (26.7±10.9 and 27.4±10.7 minutes, respectively). However, there was an approximately 16% reduction in the time per unit diameter with the robot-assisted method (Table 2).

During the collection of dissected tissue, piecemeal dissection was performed in two cases by using the conventional method, and en bloc dissection was performed in all cases by using the robot-assisted method. In both skilled and unskilled operators with the robot-assisted method, the operation time decreased as the experiment proceeded (Tables 1 and 2).

We developed a robot-assisted system as a surgical instrument to overcome the limitations of an endoscope. With regard to the target surgical method ESD, the surgical results for skilled and unskilled operators were preliminarily identified, and pilot tests were conducted to examine the benefits of robotic assistance in both types of operators. Comparative assessment of the conventional method showed that skilled and unskilled operators had large differences in terms of surgical safety and efficiency. This difference might explain the current extensive research on the development of endoscopic assistive devices for unskilled operators. Here, the surgical safety of unskilled operators improved with robotic assistance.

The perforation incidence during ESD is an important factor for determining surgical safety.25,26 In this study, the perforation incidence was recorded in all tests, and the causes were analyzed. Skilled operators did not cause perforation in any tests, whereas unskilled operators caused perforation in six of 10 tests with the conventional method. The major causes of perforation were as follows. The first cause was the inability to clearly visualize the area to be dissected. During dissection of the submucosal layer, the part of the membrane that had already been dissected covered the area that had to be subsequently dissected. Therefore, the operators could not visualize the area to be dissected and had to perform dissection according to their intuition. Skilled operators could complete the dissection even without clear visualization because of their experience. Unskilled operators lacked surgical experience; thus, they were more likely to make mistakes in this situation, consistent with the high perforation incidence in this experiment. The second cause was the difference in controlling the electrical knife when it approached the gastric wall. Skilled operators performed the task with the knife parallel to the wall as much as possible. Eventually, using these electric knives effectively prevents perforation in many difficult situations. During surgery with the conventional method, unskilled operators attempted to secure area visibility for dissection by placing the lesion upward according to the direction of gravity. This positioning caused the dissected tissue to hang downward, which resolved the issue of the flap covering the dissection area and exposed the dissection area. However, with this approach, the lesion was present at the top of the stomach, and the endoscope was present at the bottom of the stomach. Therefore, the knife was almost perpendicular to the stomach wall, and several perforations occurred (Fig. 4A). Alternatively, unskilled operators could maintain the cutter parallel to the stomach wall with the robot-assisted method, and this placement possibly reduced the perforation incidence (Fig. 4B).

In this experiment, the total operation time did not significantly differ depending on the surgical method. In general, the stages of ESD include marking, injection, precutting, and main cutting. Although the robot-assisted method included an additional step of lifting the mucous membrane, the other tasks were easier compared to those with the use of the conventional method. This ease of use might have offset the time taken for the extra step; therefore, the total operation time was not significantly different between the two methods. This experiment was conducted without a separate preliminary training session; thus, the operators were not familiar with robotic assistance. However, once the experiment proceeded, the operators quickly adjusted to the robot-assisted method and showed a decreased operation time in the later stage of the experiment compared with that in the earlier stage. These findings suggest that the use of robots can make ESD easier.

This study has some limitations. The experiment was conducted using the second REXTER prototype, which can perform all functions of REXTER, but its durability is not as reliable. Therefore, we could not conduct many experiments to obtain statistically significant values, and only the tendency of the effect on the surgery was examined through 40 pilot tests. Precise precutting is another important factor in the evaluation of ESD procedure. In this study, the precutting step was performed using only the endoscope and electronic dual knife without the robot assistant. Therefore, the precision of precutting was not evaluated in this study. However, this experiment proved worthy of further experimentation with more precisely engineered robots. A third prototype for clinical trials is under development.

Several improvements should be made before conducting survival in vivo tests and clinical trials using REXTER. First, the robotic arm should be further miniaturized. The overtube provides esophageal protection such that the robot is able to pass through the esophagus and enter the stomach without damaging the esophagus. REXTER should be sized to easily pass through the overtube. In the present study, a two-channel endoscope (GIF-2T240 endoscope; Olympus, diameter, 11.8 mm) was used, and the maximum diameter of its distal end was 17 mm when the robotic arm was attached. Although REXTER is smaller than most other endoscopic robots, the size should be further reduced for clinical trials. At present, a robot suitable for a smaller diameter endoscope (GIF-Q260; Olympus, diameter, 9.2 mm) is under development. Second, the current interface used for REXTER is not intuitive enough for doctors or nurses to operate. In this study, an engineer who helped develop the REXTER system participated in the experiments as the surgical assistant and operated the robot. For clinical trials, a more intuitive, ergonomic interface should be designed to provide easy use of the robot. Third, materials that are considered harmless to the human body should be used. The current test robot was developed using SUS304 stainless steel for in vitro testing. Other materials for in vivo testing are under development.

In conclusion, REXTER showed greater improvements in surgical safety among unskilled operators than among skilled operators. Thus, our assistive robotic arm was beneficial for ESD. Our findings suggest that endoscopic assistive robots may have positive effects on surgical safety. Although no remarkable changes in operation time were observed, future studies will likely help reduce the operation time. These future studies should also attempt to reduce the size of endoscopic surgical robots and further advance the TSM for application in clinical practice. In addition, an ergonomic, intuitive interface should be developed to ensure surgical safety as well as efficiency among skilled and unskilled operators.

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No. 2017R1C1B2006425). This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI14C3477).

B.G.K. designed and manufactured the robot system and wrote the manuscript; H.S.C. designed the study and in-vitro experimentation, analyzed the result and reviewed the manuscript; S.H.P. and J.H.H. assisted robot design and manufacturing; J.M.L. and S.H.K. assisted in-vitro study and performed ESD as a skilled operator; H.J.C. supervised the porcine model study and experiments; B.K. reviewed the medical contents in the manuscript and supervised experiments; D.H. reviewed the manuscript and supervised development of the robot system.

Fig. 1.Endoscopic submucosal dissection with an auxiliary endoscopic robot. (A) Making marking dots using a dual knife. (B) Injecting saline solution to the submucosal layer. (C) Circumferential precutting was performed by the dual knife. (D, E) Grasping and lifting up the mucous tissue using the assistive robot. (F, G) Dissecting submucous layer using the dual knife and the assistive robot. (H) Measuring the diameter of dissected mucous tissue.
Fig. 2.(A) Overview of the prototype revolute joint-based auxiliary transluminal endoscopic robot (REXTER) system. (B) Minimal manipulator of REXTER.
Fig. 3.(A) Overview of the experimental environment. (B) The in vitro test bed.
Fig. 4.(A) Configuration of the stomach wall and endoscope with the conventional approach. (B) Configuration of the stomach wall and endoscope with revolute joint-based auxiliary transluminal endoscopic robot (REXTER).

Results of Skilled Operators

Procedure no.Conventional methodRobot-assisted method


PerforationProcedure time (min)DDA (cm)TPUD (min/cm)PerforationProcedure time (min)DDA (cm)TPUD (min/cm)
1No8.83.12.84No17.13.05.70
2No7.63.12.45No15.44.13.76
3No6.52.62.50No15.72.85.61
4No6.11.63.81No10.92.15.19
5No10.93.23.41No11.22.93.86
Average7.982.723.0014.062.984.82
6No15.53.64.31No4.62.12.19
7No17.74.73.77No7.72.53.08
8No13.34.92.71No7.75.01.54
9No18.73.84.92No9.85.61.75
10No7.73.22.41No12.25.52.22
Average14.584.043.628.44.142.16
Overall average11.283.383.3111.233.563.49

Results of Unskilled Operators

Procedure no.Conventional methodRobot-assisted method


PerforationProcedure time (min)DDA (cm)TPUD (min/cm)PerforationProcedure time (min)DDA (cm)TPUD (min/cm)
1No29.02.910.00No46.64.011.7
2Yes13.4PiecemealNANo27.62.99.52
3Yes19.03.06.33Yes36.62.813.07
4No29.92.313.00No40.25.37.58
5Yes29.73.29.28No32.43.210.13
Average24.22.859.6536.683.6410.4
6No31.64.27.52No26.63.87.00
7Yes19.12.57.64No12.34.13.00
8Yes16.0PiecemealNANo22.74.45.16
9No51.45.110.08No15.14.73.21
10Yes27.54.95.61No13.84.13.37
Average29.124.187.7118.14.224.15
Overall average26.663.528.6827.393.937.28

  1. Dogangil G, Davies BL, Rodriguez y Baena F. A review of medical robotics for minimally invasive soft tissue surgery. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2010;224:653-679.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Pearl JP, Ponsky JL. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: a critical review. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:1293-1300.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Kalloo AN, Singh VK, Jagannath SB, et al. Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60:114-117.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Abbott DJ, Becke C, Rothstein RI, Peine WJ. Design of an endoluminal NOTES robotics system. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; 2007 Oct 29–Nov 2; San Diego, CA, USA.
  5. Ono H, Kondo H, Gotoda T, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection for treatment of early gastric cancer. Gut 2001;48:225-229.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  6. Hirao M, Masuda K, Asanuma T, et al. Endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer and other tumors with local injection of hypertonic saline-epinephrine. Gastrointest Endosc 1988;34:264-269.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Kato M, Gromski M, Jung Y, Chuttani R, Matthes K. The learning curve for endoscopic submucosal dissection in an established experimental setting. Surg Endosc 2013;27:154-161.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Ma MX, Bourke MJ. Endoscopic submucosal dissection in the West: current status and future directions. Dig Endosc 2018;30:310-320.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Yeung BP, Gourlay T. A technical review of flexible endoscopic multitasking platforms. Int J Surg 2012;10:345-354.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Choi HS, Chun HJ. Accessory devices frequently used for endoscopic submucosal dissection. Clin Endosc 2017;50:224-233.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  11. Song Y, Choi HS, Kim K, et al. A simple novel endoscopic successive suture device: a validation study for closure strength and reproducibility. Endoscopy 2013;45:655-660.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Choi HS, Chun HJ. Recent trends in endoscopic bariatric therapies. Clin Endosc 2017;50:11-16.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  13. Joe S, Lee D, Park JO, Park S, Kim B. Input signal effects on the locomotion of a robotic colonoscope activated by a flexible shaft. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 2017;18:461-465.
    CrossRef
  14. Kim Y, Choi HS, Kim K, et al. A novel endoscopic surgical device for gastric volume reduction bariatric surgery. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 2017;17:467-472.
    CrossRef
  15. Isshi K, Tajiri H, Fujisaki J, et al. The effectiveness of a new multibending scope for endoscopic mucosal resection. Endoscopy 2004;36:294-297.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Sumiyama K, Kaise M, Nakayoshi T, et al. Combined use of a magnifying endoscope with a narrow band imaging system and a multibending endoscope for en bloc EMR of early stage gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60:79-84.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. 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. Surg Endosc 2009;23:2720-2727.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Ikeda K, Sumiyama K, Tajiri H, Yasuda K, Kitano S. Evaluation of a new multitasking platform for endoscopic full-thickness resection. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:117-122.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Phee SJ, Ho KY, Lomanto D, et al. Natural orifice transgastric endoscopic wedge hepatic resection in an experimental model using an intuitively controlled master and slave transluminal endoscopic robot (MASTER). Surg Endosc 2010;24:2293-2298.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Phee SJ, Low SC, Huynh VA, Kencana AP, Sun ZL, Yang K. Master and slave transluminal endoscopic robot (MASTER) for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2009;2009:1192-1195.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. 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). Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:121-125.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Chiu PW, Phee SJ, Bhandari P, et al. Enhancing proficiency in performing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) by using a prototype robotic endoscope. Endosc Int Open 2015;3:E439-E442.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  23. Le HM, Do TN, Phee SJ. A survey on actuators-driven surgical robots. Sens Actuators A Phys 2016;247:323-354.
    CrossRef
  24. Phee SJ, Low SC, Dario P, Menciassi A. Tendon sheath analysis for estimation of distal end force and elongation for sensorless distal end. Robotica 2010;28:1073-1082.
    CrossRef
  25. Oda I, Saito D, Tada M, et al. A multicenter retrospective study of endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2006;9:262-270.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Sugimoto T, Okamoto M, Mitsuno Y, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is an effective and safe therapy for early gastric neoplasms: a multicenter feasible study. J Clin Gastroenterol 2012;46:124-129.
    Pubmed CrossRef

Article

Original Article

Gut and Liver 2019; 13(4): 402-408

Published online July 15, 2019 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl18370

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

A Pilot Study of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Using an Endoscopic Assistive Robot in a Porcine Stomach Model

Byung Gon Kim1 , Hyuk Soon Choi2, Sei Hoon Park1, Jun Ho Hong1, Jung Min Lee2, Seung Han Kim2, Hoon Jai Chun2, Daehie Hong1 , Bora Keum2

1Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea University, and 2Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Institute of Gastrointestinal Medical Instrument Research, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to:Daehie Honga and Bora Keumb
aDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Korea University, 145 Anam-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Korea
Tel: +82-2-3290-3369, Fax: +82-2-926-9290, E-mail: dhhong@korea.ac.kr
bDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, 73 Inchon-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Korea
Tel: +82-2-920-6555, Fax: +82-2-953-1943, E-mail: borakeum@korea.ac.kr
Byung Gon Kim and Hyuk Soon Choi contributed equally to this work as first authors.

Received: August 21, 2018; Revised: October 1, 2018; Accepted: October 15, 2018

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background/Aims

Endoscopic assistive devices have been developed to reduce the complexity and improve the safety of surgeries involving the use of endoscopes. We developed an assistive robotic arm for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and evaluated its efficiency and safety in this in vitro pilot study.

Methods

ESD was performed using an auxiliary transluminal endoscopic robot. An in vitro test bed replicating the intra-abdominal environment and pig stomachs were used for the experiment. Participants were divided into skilled operators and unskilled operators. Each group performed ESD 10 times by using both conventional and robot-assisted methods. The perforation incidence, operation time, and resected mucous membrane size were measured.

Results

For the conventional method, significant differences were noted between skilled and unskilled operators regarding operation time (11.3 minutes vs 26.7 minutes) and perforation incidence (0/10 vs 6/10). Unskilled operators showed a large decrease in the perforation incidence with the robot-assisted method (conventional method vs robot-assisted method, 6/10 vs 1/10). However, the operation time did not differ between the conventional and robot-assisted methods. On the other hand, skilled operators did not show differences in the operation time and perforation incidence between the conventional and robot-assisted methods. Among both skilled and unskilled operators, the operation time decreased with the robot-assisted method as the experiment proceeded.

Conclusions

The surgical safety of unskilled operators greatly improved with robotic assistance. Thus, our assistive robotic arm was beneficial for ESD. Our findings suggest that endoscopic assistive robots have positive effects on surgical safety.

Keywords: Endoscopic mucosal resection, Endoscopy, Pilot projects, Surgery, computer-assisted

INTRODUCTION

Currently, studies on minimally invasive surgery involving endoscopes are being actively performed worldwide.14 Among various surgeries involving the use of endoscopes, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an effective surgical method for early gastrointestinal neoplasms.5,6 However, ESD requires experienced and highly skilled doctors because of the elaborate procedure and relatively limited degrees of freedom (DOFs) of endoscopes for performing required complex movements.7,8 Globally, various assistive devices have been developed to reduce the difficulty of highly complex endoscopic surgeries, such as ESD, and to employ endoscopes as useful surgical equipment.914 These devices include EndoSamurai (Olympus Medical Systems Corp., Tokyo, Japan), EndoMaster (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore), Anubis (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany), and ViaCath (Hansen Medical, Mountain View, CA, USA).1521 Moreover, studies on surgeries performed by unskilled operators using assistive robots are being conducted.22

Our research team developed a revolute joint-based auxiliary transluminal endoscopic robot (REXTER) for ESD. As an endoscopic assistive robot, REXTER can be attached or detached from an existing general-use endoscope. REXTER also enables complex movements by providing an additional range of motion. In the present study, we assessed the characteristics of REXTER and conducted an in vitro pilot test to evaluate the efficiency of REXTER.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study was approved by the Laboratory Animal Research Center of Korea University College of Medicine (IRB number: KOREA 2017-0056).

1. Endoscopic submucosal dissection

We conducted a comparative study by using a conventional method and a robot-assisted method to verify the feasibility and safety of robot-assisted ESD. First, marking dots were made in the area around a lesion (diameter, 3 to 5 cm) by using an electrosurgical dual knife (Olympus), and the mucous layer was lifted from the muscular layer by using saline solution and a 23-gauge injection needle. Next, circumferential precutting of the marked area was performed using the dual knife along the marking dots (Fig. 1A–C). An electrosurgical unit (ERBE VIO-300D; Erbe Elektromedizin, Tübingen, Germany) was used during all procedures. These procedures were identically performed for both ESD methods. Following the procedures, only the endoscope and dual knife were used to dissect the submucosal layer in the conventional method, whereas the assistive robot was used in the robot-assisted method (Fig. 1D–G). After surgery, the dissected mucous tissue was collected (Fig. 1H). The perforation incidence in the serosal layer during surgery was considered a standard to determine surgical safety. The operation time and dissected tissue area were recorded to evaluate the efficiency of the surgery.

2. Revolute joint-based auxiliary transluminal endoscopic robot

In this study, REXTER, an endoscopic, detachable, assistive robot, was developed to increase the efficiency and safety of ESD. During dissection of the submucosal layer of a lesion, the membrane dissected in the initial stage of surgery hides the area that must be subsequently dissected, thereby making it difficult to dissect the submucosal layer as the surgery proceeds (Fig. 1C). This factor can complicate ESD. Although skilled operators can complete the surgery with gravity, cap and superior dexterity after gaining adequate clinical experience, unskilled operators find it challenging to complete the surgery when the area intended for dissection cannot be identified. During ESD, REXTER provides operators with increased visibility of the dissection area as it lifts the mucosal flap dissected earlier. Therefore, operators can perform ESD while accurately identifying the dissection area until the end of the surgery.

REXTER includes a robot arm, actuator housing, and interface console (Fig. 2A). The robot arm can be installed at the distal end of a general-use endoscope (GIF-2T240; Olympus) when needed and uninstalled after use (Fig. 2B). This feature makes REXTER convenient to apply in a clinical environment and distinguishes it from other endoscopic surgical robots. The robotic arm has two links (15 mm each) considering the size of the mucosal layer for dissection and has 4 DOFs to enable complex movements required for surgery. The operation of REXTER is based on a tendon-sheath mechanism (TSM), which is an appropriate system in a medical robot.23 The TSM is a power transmission system that controls the joints of a robot with a cable when the actuator and robot joint are separated.24 The actuator housing is equipped with a motor, controller, and power supply unit. The interface console is used by the surgical assistant to operate REXTER.

3. Participant classification

Participants were divided into the following groups (n=3, each) to understand the specific effects of the robot-assisted method: skilled group (skilled operators with at least 5 years and 500 cases of experience in ESD) and unskilled group (unskilled operators with less than 3 months and 10 cases of experience in ESD). Each group performed ESD 10 times using each surgical method (conventional and robot-assisted methods). Consequently, in vitro tests were conducted 40 times. One assistant helped with the operation of REXTER. The experimental environment is shown in Fig. 3A.

4. Sample preparation

A total of 40 pig stomachs were used in this study. The pigs were bred in a Korean farm for 6 months and weighed approximately 110 kg each. All stomachs were immediately extracted after killing the pigs on the date of the experiment. The stomachs were refrigerated for 3 hours until the start of the experiment, and remnant food items in the stomachs were removed before the experiment.

5. In vitro test bed

In this study, a specifically designed in vitro test bed was used to replicate the endoscope-based surgical environment. An external case was created using nontransparent black acryl that blocks light to replicate an intra-abdominal darkroom environment. Within the case, the slope of the stomach could be adjusted to three levels. The stomach was placed on a panel inside the case, and the esophageal region was connected to a tube that was fixed in the case (Fig. 3B).

RESULTS

With the conventional method, skilled and unskilled operators showed notable differences in terms of surgical safety and efficiency.

In the skilled group, the conventional and robot-assisted methods did not cause perforation. The mean operation time was not significantly different between the conventional and robot-assisted methods (11.3±4.8 and 11.2±4.0 minutes, respectively). However, with the robot-assisted method, the operation time decreased as the experiment proceeded (Table 1).

In the unskilled group, perforations occurred in six of 10 tests with the conventional method and in one of 10 tests with the robot-assisted method. Thus, surgical safety improved in unskilled operators with robotic assistance. Similar to the findings in the skilled group, the mean operation time was not significantly different between the conventional and robot-assisted methods (26.7±10.9 and 27.4±10.7 minutes, respectively). However, there was an approximately 16% reduction in the time per unit diameter with the robot-assisted method (Table 2).

During the collection of dissected tissue, piecemeal dissection was performed in two cases by using the conventional method, and en bloc dissection was performed in all cases by using the robot-assisted method. In both skilled and unskilled operators with the robot-assisted method, the operation time decreased as the experiment proceeded (Tables 1 and 2).

DISCUSSION

We developed a robot-assisted system as a surgical instrument to overcome the limitations of an endoscope. With regard to the target surgical method ESD, the surgical results for skilled and unskilled operators were preliminarily identified, and pilot tests were conducted to examine the benefits of robotic assistance in both types of operators. Comparative assessment of the conventional method showed that skilled and unskilled operators had large differences in terms of surgical safety and efficiency. This difference might explain the current extensive research on the development of endoscopic assistive devices for unskilled operators. Here, the surgical safety of unskilled operators improved with robotic assistance.

The perforation incidence during ESD is an important factor for determining surgical safety.25,26 In this study, the perforation incidence was recorded in all tests, and the causes were analyzed. Skilled operators did not cause perforation in any tests, whereas unskilled operators caused perforation in six of 10 tests with the conventional method. The major causes of perforation were as follows. The first cause was the inability to clearly visualize the area to be dissected. During dissection of the submucosal layer, the part of the membrane that had already been dissected covered the area that had to be subsequently dissected. Therefore, the operators could not visualize the area to be dissected and had to perform dissection according to their intuition. Skilled operators could complete the dissection even without clear visualization because of their experience. Unskilled operators lacked surgical experience; thus, they were more likely to make mistakes in this situation, consistent with the high perforation incidence in this experiment. The second cause was the difference in controlling the electrical knife when it approached the gastric wall. Skilled operators performed the task with the knife parallel to the wall as much as possible. Eventually, using these electric knives effectively prevents perforation in many difficult situations. During surgery with the conventional method, unskilled operators attempted to secure area visibility for dissection by placing the lesion upward according to the direction of gravity. This positioning caused the dissected tissue to hang downward, which resolved the issue of the flap covering the dissection area and exposed the dissection area. However, with this approach, the lesion was present at the top of the stomach, and the endoscope was present at the bottom of the stomach. Therefore, the knife was almost perpendicular to the stomach wall, and several perforations occurred (Fig. 4A). Alternatively, unskilled operators could maintain the cutter parallel to the stomach wall with the robot-assisted method, and this placement possibly reduced the perforation incidence (Fig. 4B).

In this experiment, the total operation time did not significantly differ depending on the surgical method. In general, the stages of ESD include marking, injection, precutting, and main cutting. Although the robot-assisted method included an additional step of lifting the mucous membrane, the other tasks were easier compared to those with the use of the conventional method. This ease of use might have offset the time taken for the extra step; therefore, the total operation time was not significantly different between the two methods. This experiment was conducted without a separate preliminary training session; thus, the operators were not familiar with robotic assistance. However, once the experiment proceeded, the operators quickly adjusted to the robot-assisted method and showed a decreased operation time in the later stage of the experiment compared with that in the earlier stage. These findings suggest that the use of robots can make ESD easier.

This study has some limitations. The experiment was conducted using the second REXTER prototype, which can perform all functions of REXTER, but its durability is not as reliable. Therefore, we could not conduct many experiments to obtain statistically significant values, and only the tendency of the effect on the surgery was examined through 40 pilot tests. Precise precutting is another important factor in the evaluation of ESD procedure. In this study, the precutting step was performed using only the endoscope and electronic dual knife without the robot assistant. Therefore, the precision of precutting was not evaluated in this study. However, this experiment proved worthy of further experimentation with more precisely engineered robots. A third prototype for clinical trials is under development.

Several improvements should be made before conducting survival in vivo tests and clinical trials using REXTER. First, the robotic arm should be further miniaturized. The overtube provides esophageal protection such that the robot is able to pass through the esophagus and enter the stomach without damaging the esophagus. REXTER should be sized to easily pass through the overtube. In the present study, a two-channel endoscope (GIF-2T240 endoscope; Olympus, diameter, 11.8 mm) was used, and the maximum diameter of its distal end was 17 mm when the robotic arm was attached. Although REXTER is smaller than most other endoscopic robots, the size should be further reduced for clinical trials. At present, a robot suitable for a smaller diameter endoscope (GIF-Q260; Olympus, diameter, 9.2 mm) is under development. Second, the current interface used for REXTER is not intuitive enough for doctors or nurses to operate. In this study, an engineer who helped develop the REXTER system participated in the experiments as the surgical assistant and operated the robot. For clinical trials, a more intuitive, ergonomic interface should be designed to provide easy use of the robot. Third, materials that are considered harmless to the human body should be used. The current test robot was developed using SUS304 stainless steel for in vitro testing. Other materials for in vivo testing are under development.

In conclusion, REXTER showed greater improvements in surgical safety among unskilled operators than among skilled operators. Thus, our assistive robotic arm was beneficial for ESD. Our findings suggest that endoscopic assistive robots may have positive effects on surgical safety. Although no remarkable changes in operation time were observed, future studies will likely help reduce the operation time. These future studies should also attempt to reduce the size of endoscopic surgical robots and further advance the TSM for application in clinical practice. In addition, an ergonomic, intuitive interface should be developed to ensure surgical safety as well as efficiency among skilled and unskilled operators.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No. 2017R1C1B2006425). This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI14C3477).

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

B.G.K. designed and manufactured the robot system and wrote the manuscript; H.S.C. designed the study and in-vitro experimentation, analyzed the result and reviewed the manuscript; S.H.P. and J.H.H. assisted robot design and manufacturing; J.M.L. and S.H.K. assisted in-vitro study and performed ESD as a skilled operator; H.J.C. supervised the porcine model study and experiments; B.K. reviewed the medical contents in the manuscript and supervised experiments; D.H. reviewed the manuscript and supervised development of the robot system.

Fig 1.

Figure 1.Endoscopic submucosal dissection with an auxiliary endoscopic robot. (A) Making marking dots using a dual knife. (B) Injecting saline solution to the submucosal layer. (C) Circumferential precutting was performed by the dual knife. (D, E) Grasping and lifting up the mucous tissue using the assistive robot. (F, G) Dissecting submucous layer using the dual knife and the assistive robot. (H) Measuring the diameter of dissected mucous tissue.
Gut and Liver 2019; 13: 402-408https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl18370

Fig 2.

Figure 2.(A) Overview of the prototype revolute joint-based auxiliary transluminal endoscopic robot (REXTER) system. (B) Minimal manipulator of REXTER.
Gut and Liver 2019; 13: 402-408https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl18370

Fig 3.

Figure 3.(A) Overview of the experimental environment. (B) The in vitro test bed.
Gut and Liver 2019; 13: 402-408https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl18370

Fig 4.

Figure 4.(A) Configuration of the stomach wall and endoscope with the conventional approach. (B) Configuration of the stomach wall and endoscope with revolute joint-based auxiliary transluminal endoscopic robot (REXTER).
Gut and Liver 2019; 13: 402-408https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl18370

Table 1 Results of Skilled Operators

Procedure no.Conventional methodRobot-assisted method


PerforationProcedure time (min)DDA (cm)TPUD (min/cm)PerforationProcedure time (min)DDA (cm)TPUD (min/cm)
1No8.83.12.84No17.13.05.70
2No7.63.12.45No15.44.13.76
3No6.52.62.50No15.72.85.61
4No6.11.63.81No10.92.15.19
5No10.93.23.41No11.22.93.86
Average7.982.723.0014.062.984.82
6No15.53.64.31No4.62.12.19
7No17.74.73.77No7.72.53.08
8No13.34.92.71No7.75.01.54
9No18.73.84.92No9.85.61.75
10No7.73.22.41No12.25.52.22
Average14.584.043.628.44.142.16
Overall average11.283.383.3111.233.563.49

DDA, diameter of the dissected area; TPUD, time per unit diameter.


Table 2 Results of Unskilled Operators

Procedure no.Conventional methodRobot-assisted method


PerforationProcedure time (min)DDA (cm)TPUD (min/cm)PerforationProcedure time (min)DDA (cm)TPUD (min/cm)
1No29.02.910.00No46.64.011.7
2Yes13.4PiecemealNANo27.62.99.52
3Yes19.03.06.33Yes36.62.813.07
4No29.92.313.00No40.25.37.58
5Yes29.73.29.28No32.43.210.13
Average24.22.859.6536.683.6410.4
6No31.64.27.52No26.63.87.00
7Yes19.12.57.64No12.34.13.00
8Yes16.0PiecemealNANo22.74.45.16
9No51.45.110.08No15.14.73.21
10Yes27.54.95.61No13.84.13.37
Average29.124.187.7118.14.224.15
Overall average26.663.528.6827.393.937.28

DDA, diameter of the dissected area; TPUD, time per unit diameter; NA, not available.


References

  1. Dogangil G, Davies BL, Rodriguez y Baena F. A review of medical robotics for minimally invasive soft tissue surgery. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2010;224:653-679.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Pearl JP, Ponsky JL. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: a critical review. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:1293-1300.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Kalloo AN, Singh VK, Jagannath SB, et al. Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60:114-117.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Abbott DJ, Becke C, Rothstein RI, Peine WJ. Design of an endoluminal NOTES robotics system. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems; 2007 Oct 29–Nov 2; San Diego, CA, USA.
  5. Ono H, Kondo H, Gotoda T, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection for treatment of early gastric cancer. Gut 2001;48:225-229.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  6. Hirao M, Masuda K, Asanuma T, et al. Endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer and other tumors with local injection of hypertonic saline-epinephrine. Gastrointest Endosc 1988;34:264-269.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Kato M, Gromski M, Jung Y, Chuttani R, Matthes K. The learning curve for endoscopic submucosal dissection in an established experimental setting. Surg Endosc 2013;27:154-161.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Ma MX, Bourke MJ. Endoscopic submucosal dissection in the West: current status and future directions. Dig Endosc 2018;30:310-320.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Yeung BP, Gourlay T. A technical review of flexible endoscopic multitasking platforms. Int J Surg 2012;10:345-354.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Choi HS, Chun HJ. Accessory devices frequently used for endoscopic submucosal dissection. Clin Endosc 2017;50:224-233.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  11. Song Y, Choi HS, Kim K, et al. A simple novel endoscopic successive suture device: a validation study for closure strength and reproducibility. Endoscopy 2013;45:655-660.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Choi HS, Chun HJ. Recent trends in endoscopic bariatric therapies. Clin Endosc 2017;50:11-16.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  13. Joe S, Lee D, Park JO, Park S, Kim B. Input signal effects on the locomotion of a robotic colonoscope activated by a flexible shaft. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 2017;18:461-465.
    CrossRef
  14. Kim Y, Choi HS, Kim K, et al. A novel endoscopic surgical device for gastric volume reduction bariatric surgery. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 2017;17:467-472.
    CrossRef
  15. Isshi K, Tajiri H, Fujisaki J, et al. The effectiveness of a new multibending scope for endoscopic mucosal resection. Endoscopy 2004;36:294-297.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Sumiyama K, Kaise M, Nakayoshi T, et al. Combined use of a magnifying endoscope with a narrow band imaging system and a multibending endoscope for en bloc EMR of early stage gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60:79-84.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. 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. Surg Endosc 2009;23:2720-2727.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Ikeda K, Sumiyama K, Tajiri H, Yasuda K, Kitano S. Evaluation of a new multitasking platform for endoscopic full-thickness resection. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:117-122.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Phee SJ, Ho KY, Lomanto D, et al. Natural orifice transgastric endoscopic wedge hepatic resection in an experimental model using an intuitively controlled master and slave transluminal endoscopic robot (MASTER). Surg Endosc 2010;24:2293-2298.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. Phee SJ, Low SC, Huynh VA, Kencana AP, Sun ZL, Yang K. Master and slave transluminal endoscopic robot (MASTER) for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2009;2009:1192-1195.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  21. 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). Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:121-125.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. Chiu PW, Phee SJ, Bhandari P, et al. Enhancing proficiency in performing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) by using a prototype robotic endoscope. Endosc Int Open 2015;3:E439-E442.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  23. Le HM, Do TN, Phee SJ. A survey on actuators-driven surgical robots. Sens Actuators A Phys 2016;247:323-354.
    CrossRef
  24. Phee SJ, Low SC, Dario P, Menciassi A. Tendon sheath analysis for estimation of distal end force and elongation for sensorless distal end. Robotica 2010;28:1073-1082.
    CrossRef
  25. Oda I, Saito D, Tada M, et al. A multicenter retrospective study of endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2006;9:262-270.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  26. Sugimoto T, Okamoto M, Mitsuno Y, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is an effective and safe therapy for early gastric neoplasms: a multicenter feasible study. J Clin Gastroenterol 2012;46:124-129.
    Pubmed CrossRef
Gut and Liver

Vol.18 No.1
January, 2024

pISSN 1976-2283
eISSN 2005-1212

qrcode
qrcode

Share this article on :

  • line

Popular Keywords

Gut and LiverQR code Download
qr-code

Editorial Office