Tissue Stress from Laparoscopic Grasper Use and Bowel Injury in Humans: Establishing Intraoperative Force Boundaries

The Complex Mechanical Response of Tissue to Compression

It is challenging to accurately quantify and model biological soft tissues’ multifaceted and complex behavior in response to the compressive force exerted by laparoscopic graspers. The mechanical response of tissue is based on two factors: a) the inherent mechanical properties of that tissue and b) the environmental loading characteristics it is subjected to. The small and large bowel are composed of multiple tissue layers. Within each layer, different fibers are distributed according to specific spatial orientations, which creates a strongly anisotropic configuration where measured properties varies along its different axes [11]. For example, colonic tissues have been shown to exhibit a non-linear viscoelastic rate-dependent response under compression due to its inhomogeneity [12].

Grasper Jaw Geometry and Stress on Tissues

Laparoscopic graspers have jaws traditionally made from stainless steel due to its durability and ease of sterilization. The main disadvantage of using metal is that metal is a much stiffer material than delicate gastrointestinal tissues and as such, compressing tissue with metal graspers can cause damage at the cellular level (such as mechanical destruction of the cell membrane or nucleus) or tissue level (such as rupture of muscle fibers or ischemia from the destruction of blood vessels) [13]. Graspers also come in a variety of jaw geometries and teeth profiles such as straight or flared, fenestrated with waves or solid and single or dual action, which contribute both to their function and damage potential. When designing a new grasper, consideration for jaw profile must be first and foremost because the jaw must maximize tissue grip to avoid slippage but it also must not damage tissue by creating areas of stress concentration. For example, when a grasper’s jaw is serrated, increasing the size of the teeth will help prevent slippage but also causes more damage to tissue [14]. Rounding the edge of the graspers can reduce high stress concentrations at the tip [15]. Cheng and Hannaford further investigated this relationship and created both a 2D and 3D finite element analysis (FEA) study of calculated von Mises stress distributions under compression loads in a grasper and liver tissue model [16]. They found that in the 2D plane strain model, that 80% of the stress in the area directly beneath the grasper was over 300 kPa, which is over the damage limit they elucidated in their previous work of 240 kPa for liver tissue [17]. Injury to tissue can also increase over time, even after the initial stress event is over. This happens when a core amount of tissue experiences necrosis from the initial pressure event and then stiffens. This stiffening may induce adjoining cells to have an increase in osmotic pressure, a decrease in efficiency of cellular mechanisms of repair and subsequent necrosis of the adjoining tissue. Nagel et al., explored the effects of cellular stiffening on tissue damage and found that stiffening significantly contributed to both the pressure induced damage amount and the rate of damage progression [18].

Is Porcine Tissue an Accurate Surrogate for Human Tissues?

Previous studies exploring grasper jaw and tissue interactions have mostly centered on porcine tissue studies. This is due to the vast logistical and ethical challenges involved in human tissue experimentation and the previous assumption that porcine tissues are close enough to human tissues to be a surrogate model. Christensen et al.’s work with porcine and human bowel tissues casts doubt on this assumption however, as they found that human tissues were stronger, stiffer and less compliant than porcine tissue. Porcine tissue was able to stretch almost twice as much as human bowel tissue (with an elastic modulus of 1.83 MPa and 5.18 respectively), while human bowel tissue had a higher ultimate average strength (0.58 MPa compared to 0.87 for human tissues) [19]. Heijnsdijk et al. also found that the inter-individual variability in perforation forces is quite large and that bowel strength could differ by a factor of two between patients [20]. Because of this large variation in bowel strength, surgeons must be acutely aware that forces that can be safely applied to one patient may cause a perforation in another. Both groups’ data suggests that porcine tissue does not accurately model human bowel tissue’s mechanical properties and that new experimentation with human tissues must occur to establish accurate tool-tissue force limits.

Establishing Safe Tissue Force Boundaries in Humans with a Histopathological Analysis

This study aims to address this concern by investigating the relationship between grasper jaw forces and human small and large bowel (colon) tissues. These tissue types were specifically chosen for two reasons: first, they are the most clinically relevant in relation to repeated grasp injury and second, bowel is one of the most delicate tissues in the human body. van der Voort et al., found that the overall incidence of laparoscopy-induced bowel injury was 0.36%. The small intestine was most frequently injured (55.8%), followed by the large intestine (38.6%) [3]. Schwartz et al. found an even higher incidence of 0.65% with blunt injury (23.1%) being the most common etiology of damage [21].

To the authors’ knowledge, this will be the first study to investigate the upper limit of force by laparoscopic graspers in human tissues with a histological analysis of cellular damage. A histological model was chosen to objectively and quantifiably understand how the intestinal tissue structure is microscopically affected as a result of mechanical loading. This data will be important as we move into an age of “smart surgical tools” that can quantify tool-tissue force interactions. This data must also be incorporated into the training of new surgical residents. While the McGill Inanimate System for Training and Evaluation of Laparoscopic Skills (MISTELS) is widely used to teach and assess laparoscopic ability, assessment metrics do not currently take into account tool-tissue force interactions [22]. The lack of evaluation of the physical forces exerted on tissues misses a crucial dimension of surgical skill. Quantifying how surgical residents interact with delicate tissues should not just look at task time completion or economy of movement. A laparoscopic grasper with an integrated force sensor should be used so that force metrics can be evaluated as well.

Study Design and Experimental Protocol

We previously created a prototype device, the SimpleCAT (simple crush apparatus for tissue) to produce discrete grasp forces on human gastrointestinal tissue to test feasibility and workflow for human tissue experimentation [23]. This current paper aims to build upon the work of Chandler et al. in defining an upper force limit for human small and large bowel tissue with a more sophisticated and accurate device than our previous work [24]. To this end, a new custom device called the Precision Crush Apparatus for Tissue (PrecisionCAT) was created (Figure 1a). A study to test the device was approved by the Research Ethics Office of St. Michael’s Hospital (REB #15-299) in Toronto, Ontario. Patients were consented by their operating surgeon, using a standard surgical consent form, which at our institution, includes a provision for using excess surgical tissues (not needed for surgical pathology) for research purposes. Patients were given an information form as well, that included a contact number if they chose to withdraw their sample from the study at any time post-operation. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations of our institution and ethics office.

Each patient had six 1 cm x 1 cm tissue samples cut from their usable tissue. Each sample was loaded onto the grasper plate of the PrecisionCAT serosa side up on a small cellulose-fiber sheet to avoid tissue slippage, and one at a time, a discrete force was exerted on it ranging from 0 to 11.8 N (0 to 600 kPa). Specifically forces of 2 N, 3.9 N, 5.9 N, 7.8 N, 9.8 N and 11.8 N were used, or using our precision pin plate with known surface area of 19.6mm², calculated pressures of 0 kPa, 100 kPa, 200 kPa, 300 kPa, 400 kPa, 500 kPa and 600 kPa. Each simulated grasp was for a duration of 10 seconds. This is consistent with our previous protocol which used precision weights (0 g, 200 g, 400 g, 600 g, 800 g, 1000 g and 1200 g) and the same diameter of pin plate to generate equivalent force and pressure. These metrics were chosen to be consistent with the mean grasp force and 95% of grasp time elucidated by the Blue DRAGON system for laparoscopic tasks (8.52 N ± 2.77 N and 8.86 s ± 7.06 s), Zhou et al.’s tribology studies (0-16 N with significant tissue damage achieved past 13 N) and Chandler et al.’s protocol (0 - 300 kPa grasps with 10 s duration) [4], [25], [26]. The order in which tissues were compressed with each amount of force was randomized so that the pathologists did not know the tissue’s loading condition. After each tissue sample was compressed, it was cut in halfand processed for histology. On average, from the time the sample was removed from the patient to the end of the full experimental protocol, the research team took only 20 minutes, to maximally preserve tissue integrity. When analyzing the slides, the two pathologists were again blinded to the amount of force each tissue was subjected to and slides were analyzed out of order to prevent bias.

Experimental Test Equipment

A test system (Figure 1a, Build of Materials in the Appendix) was developed based on Chandler et al.’s work, to apply mechanically controlled ‘grasps’ to tissue samples that are characteristic of those sustained intraoperatively. Key requirements were similar to Chandler’s: the test system should apply compressive grasps where the loading rate, peak stress and hold time are directly controlled and the grasper plate position precisely known. The ensuing system, named the Precision Crush Apparatus for Tissue (PrecisionCAT), uses a linear actuator with 0.1 µm resolution (LCA50-025-72-1F-3, SMAC Moving Coil Actuators, California, USA) to drive together two “grasp plates” (representing the grasper jaws) and thus compress a sample of target tissue. The actuator was controlled via the SMAC LAC-1 servo motor controller (SMAC Moving Coil Actuators, California, USA) and utilized force data from the load cell to regulate velocity and position. The load cell used was a high precision compression-link load cell (LCM-703-25, Omega Engineering, Connecticut, USA) coupled with a precision differential instrumentation amplifier (DMD-465, Omega Engineering, Connecticut, USA) to amplify and convert the load cell’s voltage to a larger voltage for digitization. Position and load data was synchronously recorded at 31 Hz. The grasp plates were rapid prototyped at 75 μm resolution using a Somos WaterShed XC 11122 (ZRapid SL600, Jiangsu, China). The plates’ geometry is not based on a specific grasper jaw with fenestrations, but instead, comprise of a smooth bottom test platform and the top, of a pin plate with an indentation tip, with the pin plate being driven closer to the test platform plate by the linear actuator (Figure 1b). The cylindrical pin was fabricated with a known diameter of 5 mm and surface area of 19.6 mm² to allow for pressure to be calculated from force for a standardized measurement.

The geometry of the indentation tip and its size relative to the test material and test platform plate were important design considerations. A smooth, flat indentation tip with no fenestrations was used rather than actual grasper jaw geometry because a uniform circular flat tip ensures a constant and predictable contact profile between the material and the tip. This simplifies analysis as it avoids the difficulty of mapping applied pressure generated from a grasper jaw with fenestrations and a hinge mechanism. It also isolates strain effects on the tissue from the confounding effects of grasper geometry. Pressure would vary along the length of the jaw and depend on the mechanical advantage at the grasper linkage mechanism and would include areas of local stress at the peaks of the fenestrations. A large sample-to-tip dimension ratio also fulfills the half-space assumption used during analytical derivation for material testing [27].

The ability of the SimpleCAT to produce a consistent, even pressure on the loaded tissues was evaluated using Fujifilm Prescale film (Fujifilm, Tokyo, Japan). Prescale film can precisely measure pressure distribution and balance. The two-sheet system for Extreme Low Pressure was used (Prescale 4LW, R310 3M, 0.05 MPa). Both sheets are coated in a polyester base, with the top sheet impregnated with a color-developing material and the bottom coated with a micro-encapsulated color-forming chemical. When pressure is applied, the color microcapsules are broken and the color-developing material reacts to develop a red colour. The colour density and distribution corresponds to the uniformity of contact pressure. The SimpleCAT produced an even, consistent colour change on the Prescale film.

The full assembly schematics, .STL files and build of materials is available to use for free, via our Harvard Dataverse repository [28]. Existing Python code was adapted and expanded to create custom software to control the actuator motion and hold its position once a pre-defined load threshold from the load cell was reached [29]. This code is available to use freely on our Github repository [30].

Biospecimen Tissue Preparation and Analysis

Small and large bowel tissues were chosen for this study based on data from our pilot project and the clinical significance of perforation or injury of these tissues [23]. Out of necessity, tissues included in this study were a convenience sample and were based on what operations were scheduled. All surgeons in the Division of General Surgery at St. Michael’s Hospital were enrolled in the study and when they had a scheduled operation that included a surgical pathology sample (with wide enough margins of normal tissue), our research team would be present in the operating room and acquire the sample as soon as it was removed from the body (Figure 1c). Small or large bowel was either removed laparoscopically or through an open surgical approach. Samples were kept in a fresh state rather than being stored in 10% buffered formalin to preserve cellular integrity and mechanical properties. Once removed, samples were immediately taken to an adjacent histology suite where the two pathologists, CS and CR would assess the tissue so that sections for testing were taken from tissue not needed for normal pathologic analysis. Segments of tissue that were inflamed, pathological or damaged by clips or sutures were excluded and only the normal, healthy tissue away from margins and lesional tissue were used. Six 1 cm x 1 cm tissue squares were cut from each sample and each loaded onto the PrecisionCAT serosa side up for experimentation. Full “tube” bowel sections were not used due to the amount of tissue available. Blue tissue marking dye (#1003-5 Blue, Davidson Marking System, Minnesota, USA) was used to coat the indentation tip of the grasp plate before the experiment was performed so that when the tip made contact with the tissue, the area of compression would be evident when preparing and viewing slides. Numerous dyes were tested such as India ink but this specific dye was found to be most reliably visualized under the microscope after slide processing. Once the experimental protocol was complete, the tested section was cut in half across the area of compression, fixed in formalin for normal histology processing and cut en-face to allow a full cross-sectional view across the area of compression, then regular tissue processing and staining took place, as follows: Tissues were fixed in 10% buffered formalin, processed and embedded in paraffin. Sections with a thickness of 4 microns were cut and tissues were mounted to glass slides. Careful consideration in regard to orientation needed to occur to ensure that sections that were parallel to the direction of the applied pressure was chosen, however in some cases the tissue twisted during processing/embedding and a flat transverse section was not possible. Sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) for typical visualization of cell morphology and structure. Once slide preparation was complete, they were scanned at 20x using a brightfield digital pathology scanner utilizing the time delay and integration (TDI) line scan method (Aperio AT Turbo, Leica Biosystems, Wetzlar, Germany). Slides were analyzed using digital slide viewing software (Aperio ImageScope, Leica Biosystems, Wetzlar, Germany) that included magnification, pan, zoom and distance measurement tools. Serosal thickness was specifically targeted for quantification because it is serosal disruption that is hypothesized to be the basis of adhesion formation. Peritoneal adhesions are found in up to 93% of patients post intra-abdominal surgery [31]. Adhesions can cause a number of significant clinical problems including bowel obstruction, chronic abdominal pain, infertility and organ tissue injury, leading to higher rates of morbidity and mortality post-surgery. It is hypothesized that trauma to serosal surfaces and the subsequent altered complex healing cascade can lead to permanent fibrin bridges that can form the basis of intestinal adhesion attachment to neighbouring structures such as other intestinal loops or the abdominal wall [31].

Tissue Trauma Score and Serosa Thickness Calculations

Due to the experimental protocol being ex-vivo, normal markers of cellular injury such as increased granulocyte recruitment (neutrophils and eosinophils), apoptosis, exudatesclot formation could not be utilized. Instead, areas of tissue injury were identified by quantifiable denudation of the normal layers of the intestine or from increased thinning and elongation of the cell with dense hyperchromatic nuclei. Two metrics of damage were quantified: an intestinal layer thickness calculation where the serosa (outermost) layer was measured in the area of compression (C) and compared to a local control (LC) region that was not compressed as a percent deformation and a histological scoring scale for tissue trauma (Figure 2). The histological scoring scale was created by the two pathologists in this study (and employed in our previous preliminary study), as we were unable to find a suitable pathologist-validated scale endorsed in the literature [23]. The criteria for the scale is outlined in Table 1 and representative images shown in Figure 2.

Histological images were taken at 400x and all serosa layer thickness measurements were performed at the center of the experimental area of compression (as visualized on the scanned slides as areas where dye was present from the indentation tip) as the center region is the most representative of the average stress of the transmitted force.

Five measurements were taken of the thickness of the serosa layer in the area of compression and then averaged for a total value. Five measurements were also taken in an adjacent non-compressed area and averaged to serve as a local control. Multiple data points were sampled for each patient to counteract artifacts associated with the typical histological slide creation process. This includes tissue shrinkage or the warping of tissue orientation on slides. Percent deformation (rather than an absolute delta in microns) was used for this reason as well, and was calculated as the percent difference between the thicknesses of the compressed area to its local control of uncompressed tissue.

Experimental Methodology

The PrecisionCAT was created to deliver a precise and discrete pressure “grasp” to the loaded tissue sample via compression by the two grasp plates to simulate being grasped by a laparoscopic grasper. As previously discussed above, we chose to program loading conditions of 0 to 11.8 N or 0 to 600 kPa (specifically of 2 N, 3.9 N, 5.9 N, 7.8 N, 9.8 N and 11.8 N or using our precision pin plate with known indentation tip surface area of 19.6mm², calculated pressures of 0 kPa, 100 kPa, 200 kPa, 300 kPa, 400 kPa, 500 kPa and 600 kPa) for a duration of 10 seconds to match those previously reported in porcine literature. Logically, we would expect to induce more tissue trauma as we apply higher loads, with the most significant damage occurring at the highest loads of 9.8 N (500 kPa) and 11.8 N (600 kPa) of pressure. A new piece of 1 cm x 1 cm tissue was used for each loading condition and was compressed at a loading rate of 5 mm/s until making initial contact with the tissue (as defined by a positive mean force of the last three measurements) at which point velocity slowed to 1 mm/s. The velocity was programmed to progressively reduce by half as force approached the target force in order to maintain a minimum force resolution of approximately 1% of the target force. This asymptotic approach for velocity is necessary to minimize overshoot due to the rapid increase in tissue stiffness as it is compressed. Once the target force was achieved, the system then maintained this position for a duration of 10 seconds, which represents a typical duration of grasp during laparoscopic surgery, before releasing the tissue at the same rate as it was loaded. The signal voltage was filtered from the force transducer (load cell) using a low pass filter (a -3dB Bessel filter at 2 kHz) to smooth out unwanted noise. Position, time and force values were all logged synchronously at 31 Hz and stress and strain were calculated (Figure 3). During statistical analysis, force data was further pre-processed using a third-order Butterworth low-pass digital filter with a cut-off frequency of 12.4 Hz. Mechanical measures of stress and strain were calculated from the raw positional and force data.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis and modelling was performed using NumPy, pandas and Scikit-learn using the Python programming language [32]–[34]. All graphs were created with Matplotlib [35]. A series of one-tailed t-tests were performed to compare sample serosal thickness measurements at compressed vs local control area in the histological slides. The tests were to investigate significant decrease in thickness due to compression of the tissue. Different groupings were considered in the analysis by patient, load level and tissue type. To investigate the relationship between serosal thickness change and the pathologist’s trauma score ratings, a correlation study was also completed. The goal of this analysis was to establish evidence of tissue damage and to identify promising predictive metrics that could be utilized in a live operative environment. As such, features derived from the histological analysis would be unable to be used in real time, and were excluded for the predictive models.

A logistic regression model was trained to predict significant serosal thickness change as a classification task. A second logistic regression model was trained to predict a positive tissue trauma score. The intention of these predictive models was evaluate how well input features that could be measured intraoperatively such as force, position of the grasper and time that the tissue was compressed and features that could be derived from those such as stress, strain and stiffness of the tissue, could be used to predict the likelihood of subsequent tissue trauma. This algorithm then could be incorporated into a “smart” laparoscopic tool that can, in real-time, alert a surgeon in the operating room about force use and subsequent pathological tissue response.

Demographics and Experimental Cases

The research team was limited in regard to the availability of specimens, as all tissue used in this study were from scheduled operations and were tissues taken out as per normal surgical workflow. Overall, 26 samples were procured but six tissue samples were unusable due to a variety of factors such as the pathologists being unavailable for immediate experimentation, the tissue being too inflamed, or the tissue sample being of inadequate size to complete the experimental protocol. In total, we were able to complete the full experimental protocol (6 load pressures) on 20 patients’ tissues, with 10 colon samples and 10 small bowel samples for a total of 120 experimental cases and 120 control cases (Table 2).

Tissue measurements

Logistic Regression Model

Two logistic regression models were trained in order to predict target metrics: a positive Trauma Score and significant serosa thickness change. Logistic regression was selected because it is an easily interpretable model and could be implemented in an intraoperative environment in a manual or automatic approach. Other models (especially Support Vector Machine classifiers) were able to outperform the logistic regression in predictive trials on the data. However, logistic regression will be considered in this paper because of its ease of implementation in a real-time setting. In addition, the models were trained on a single feature (target stress, Figure 6a), which was selected as it was the most predictive (it was the feature with the highest correlation). This feature was expected to be the most important to predict tissue trauma because it is directly derived from the maximum force.

The features that both models included were derived from the force and displacement measurements obtained during each experimental condition. Firstly, the force measurements were transformed to stress on the tissue based on the contact surface area of the indentation pin. The displacement measurements, measured with a resolution of 1 µm, were converted into strain of the tissue, taking into account the initial tissue thickness, as determined by the tool coming into contact with the tissue. Both of these measurements, in addition to time stamps, could be measured in a sensorized grasper tool.

From this data, further features were derived, which is shown in Table 6. Additionally, patient age, gender and tissue type were included as features as well.