4.5 Review

A review on recent advances in soft surgical robots for endoscopic applications

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2010

关键词

abdominal; digestive system; soft robotics; actuators; endoscopy; safety; sensors; endoscopy; minimal invasive surgery; natural orifice surgery

类别

资金

  1. Technical Medical (TechMed) Centre, University of Twente Funding Source: Medline
  2. Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP) Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Soft materials, with their compliant properties, enable conformity and safe interaction with human body. With the advance in actuation and sensing of soft materials, new paradigm in robotics called soft robotics emerges. Soft robotics has become a new approach in designing medical devices such as wearable robotic gloves and exoskeleton. However, application of soft robotics in surgical instrument inside human body is still in its infancy. Aims In this paper, current application and design of soft robots specifically applied for endoscopy are reviewed. Materials & Methods Different aspects in the implementation of soft robotics in endoscope design were reviewed. The key studies about MIS and NOTES were reviewed to establish the clinical background and extract the limitations of current endoscopic device in the last decade. Results and discussion In this review study, the implementation of soft robotics concepts in endoscopic application, with highlights on different features of several soft endoscopes, were evaluated. The progress in different aspects of soft robotics endoscope, current state, and future perspectives were also discussed. Conclusion Based on the survey on the structural specification, actuation, sensing, and stiffening the future soft surgical endoscopes are recommended to fulfil the following specifications: safe especially from pressure leakage, fully biocompatible materials, MR-compatible, capable for large bending in at least two antagonistic directions, modularity, adjustable stiffness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据