2018
DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1916
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A robotic suture‐passing device for possible use in SILS and NOTES

Abstract: Background Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic (NOTES) and single incisional laparoscopic surgeries (SILS) have been gaining importance over the last two decades. Due to improper instrumentation, small workspace and the imperceptibility of body structures, suturing and knot‐tying are difficult to perform in both. Methods An intracorporeal suture‐passing device with two manipulator arms is proposed that automatically passes the suture around ducts of up to 7 mm diameter, without additional manipulation of a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 22 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results demonstrated that the trainees using the “inverse 9” LSKT method achieved proficiency faster than those using the traditional LSKT method, confirming that the “inverse 9” LSKT method can be mastered more quickly. The traditional LSKT method's laparoscopic winding operation was found to increase the knot-tying time due to its difficulty and uncertainty, as reported previously in the literature [ 15 ]. Additionally, the coiling operation in the traditional LSKT method required a longer thread length and more operating space [ 16 , 17 ], which was not necessary in the “inverse 9” LSKT method.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…The results demonstrated that the trainees using the “inverse 9” LSKT method achieved proficiency faster than those using the traditional LSKT method, confirming that the “inverse 9” LSKT method can be mastered more quickly. The traditional LSKT method's laparoscopic winding operation was found to increase the knot-tying time due to its difficulty and uncertainty, as reported previously in the literature [ 15 ]. Additionally, the coiling operation in the traditional LSKT method required a longer thread length and more operating space [ 16 , 17 ], which was not necessary in the “inverse 9” LSKT method.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%