Surgical endoscopy · 2016
A hydraulically driven colonoscope.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Coleman Stuart A, Tapia-Siles Silvia C, Pakleppa Markus, Vorstius Jan B, Keatch Robert P, Tang Benjie, Cuschieri Alfred
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Conventional colonoscopy requires a high degree of operator skill and is often painful for the patient. We present a preliminary feasibility study of an alternative approach where a self-propelled colonoscope is hydraulically driven through the colon.
METHODS: A hydraulic colonoscope which could be controlled manually or automatically was developed and assessed in a test bed modelled on the anatomy of the human colon. A conventional colonoscope was used by an experienced colonoscopist in the same test bed for comparison. Pressures and forces on the colon were measured during the test.
RESULTS: The hydraulic colonoscope was able to successfully advance through the test bed in a comparable time to the conventional colonoscope. The hydraulic colonoscope reduces measured loads on artificial mesenteries, but increases intraluminal pressure compared to the colonoscope. Both manual and automatically controlled modes were able to successfully advance the hydraulic colonoscope through the colon. However, the automatic controller mode required lower pressures than manual control, but took longer to reach the caecum.
CONCLUSIONS: The hydraulic colonoscope appears to be a viable device for further development as forces and pressures observed during use are comparable to those used in current clinical practice.
METHODS: A hydraulic colonoscope which could be controlled manually or automatically was developed and assessed in a test bed modelled on the anatomy of the human colon. A conventional colonoscope was used by an experienced colonoscopist in the same test bed for comparison. Pressures and forces on the colon were measured during the test.
RESULTS: The hydraulic colonoscope was able to successfully advance through the test bed in a comparable time to the conventional colonoscope. The hydraulic colonoscope reduces measured loads on artificial mesenteries, but increases intraluminal pressure compared to the colonoscope. Both manual and automatically controlled modes were able to successfully advance the hydraulic colonoscope through the colon. However, the automatic controller mode required lower pressures than manual control, but took longer to reach the caecum.
CONCLUSIONS: The hydraulic colonoscope appears to be a viable device for further development as forces and pressures observed during use are comparable to those used in current clinical practice.