Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T23:21:00.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Choice of handedness and automated suturing for anthropomorphic dual-arm surgical robots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2014

Jienan Ding  and
Nabil Simaan
Jienan Ding
Affiliation:
Hstar Technologies, 625 Mount Auburn Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
Nabil Simaan*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: nabil.simaan@vanderbilt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Laparoscopic and Single Port Access Surgery (SPAS) present unique dexterity challenges related to dual-arm operations in confined spaces and tele-manipulation of highly dexterous surgical slaves. In an effort to reduce tele-manipulation burden, new paradigms for semi-automating surgical tasks are needed. This paper presents a new minimal constraint suturing and automated choice of handedness for anthropomorphic dual-arm robots. The automated choice of handedness supports surgeons during tele-manipulation of complex robotic slaves where dexterity and workspace constraints are difficult to learn. This criterion is also used to support automated dual-arm rendezvous for quicker suture exchange during dual-arm suturing. The minimal constraint algorithm presented in this paper allows surgeons to operate within a shared-control tele-manipulation framework whereby the surgeon controls the needle insertion speed and the robot controls the needle orientation while respecting a minimalistic set of tissue constraints. This framework is evaluated on a novel insertable robotic end-effectors platform for SPAS. A simulation study demonstrates the effectiveness of the automated choice of handedness criterion through a study of dexterity limitations of each arm. Additional simulations show the proposed algorithm for automated rendezvous and suture exchange.

Keywords

Surgical assistanceDexteritySuturingSingle port access surgery
Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 33 , Issue 8 , October 2015 , pp. 1775 - 1793
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Charles, S., “Dexterity Enhancement for Surgery,” In: Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer-Assisted Surgery, Pittsburgh, PA (Taylor, R. H., Lavallee, S., Burdea, G. C. and Mosges, R., eds.) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996) pp. 467–472.Google Scholar
2. Simaan, N., Taylor, R., Flint, P. and Hillel, A., “Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Upper Airways: Addressing the Challenges of Dexterity Enhancement in Confined Spaces,” In: Surgical Robotics – History, Present and Future Applications, Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, U.S. (Faust, R., ed.) (2007), pp. 261–280.Google Scholar
3. Piccigallo, M., Scarfogliero, U., Quaglia, C., Petroni, G., Valdastri, P., Menciassi, A. and Dario, P., “Design of a novel bimanual robotic system for single-port laparoscopy,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 15 (6), 871–878 (2010).Google Scholar
4. Simaan, N., Xu, K., Wei, W., Kapoor, A., Kazanzides, P., Taylor, R. and Flint, P., “Design and integration of a telerobotic system for minimally invasive surgery of the throat,” Int. J. Rob. Res. 28 (9), 1134–1153 (2009).Google Scholar
5. Ding, J., Xu, K., Goldman, R., Allen, P., Fowler, D. and Simaan, N., “Design, Simulation and Evaluation of Kinematic Alternatives for Insertable Robotic Effectors Platforms in Single Port Access Surgery,” Proceedings of the ICRA 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Alaska, US (May 3–8, 2010) pp. 1053–1058.Google Scholar
6. Yamashita, H., Matsumiya, K., Masamune, K., Liao, H. and Dohi, T., “Two-DOFs Bending Forceps Manipulator of 3.5-mm Diameter for Intrauterine Fetus Surgery: Feasibility Evaluation,” Proceedings of the 20th International Congress and Exhibition: Computer-Assisted Radiology and Surgery (CARS'2006), Osaka, Japan (Jun. 27–Jul. 1, 2006) pp. 218–220.Google Scholar
7. Reynaerts, D., Peirs, J. and Van Brussel, H., “Shape memory micro-actuation for a gastro-intestinal intervention system,” Sensors Actuators 77, 157–166 (1999).Google Scholar
8. Merlet, J.-P., “Optimal Design for the Micro Parallel Robot MIPS,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 2, Washington, DC, US (May 11–15, 2002) pp. 1149–1154.Google Scholar
9. Peirs, J., Reynaerts, D., Van Brussel, H., De Gersem, G. and Tang, H. T., “Design of an Advanced Tool Guiding System for Robotic Surgery,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Taiwan (Sep. 14–19, 2003) pp. 2651–2656.Google Scholar
10. Mitsuishi, M., Watanabe, H., Nakanishi, H., Kubota, H. and Iizuka, Y., “Dexterity Enhancement for a Tele-Micro-Surgery System with Multiple Macro-Micro Co-Located Operation Point Manipulators and Understanding of the Operator's Intention,” In: 3rd International Symposium on Medical Robotics and Computer-Assisted Surgery (MRCAS'97), (Troccaz, J., Grimson, E. and Mosges, R., eds.), LNCS, vol. 1205 (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1997) pp. 821–830.Google Scholar
11. Reboulet, C. and Durand-Leguay, S., “Optimal Design of Redundant Parallel Mechanism for Endoscopic Surgery,” IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, vol. 3, Kyongju, Korea (Oct. 17–21, 1999) pp. 1432–1437.Google Scholar
12. Harada, K., Tsubouchi, K., Fujie, M. G. and Chiba, T., “Micro Manipulators for Intrauterine Fetal Surgery in an Open MRI,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Barcelona, Spain (Apr. 18–22, 2005) pp. 504–509.Google Scholar
13. Dombre, E., Michelin, M., Pierrot, F., Poignet, P., Bidaud, P., Morel, G., Ortmaier, T., Salle, D., Zemiti, N., Gravez, P., Karouia, M. and Bonnet, N., “MARGE Project: Design, Modelling, and Control of Assistive Devices for Minimally Invasive Surgery,” 7th International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention (MICCAI 2004), LNCS, vol. 3217, Saint-Malo, France (Sep. 26–29, 2004) pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
14. Cavusoglu, M. C., Cohn, M., Tendick, F. and Sastry, S., “A laparascopic telesurgical workstation,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 15 (4), 728–739 (1999).Google Scholar
15. Abbott, D., Becke, C., Rothstein, R. and Peine, W., “Design of an Endoluminal NOTES Robotic System,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2007 (IROS 2007), San Diego, California, USA (Oct. 29–Nov. 2, 2007) pp. 410–416.Google Scholar
16. Dachs, G. W. and Peine, W. J., “A Novel Surgical Robot Design: Minimizing the Operating Envelope within the Sterile Field,” 28th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBS'06), New York, USA (Aug. 30–Sep. 3, 2006) pp. 1505–1508.Google Scholar
17. Dario, P., Paggetti, C., Troisfontaine, N., Papa, E., Ciucci, T., Carrozza, M. C. and Marcacci, M., “A Miniature Steerable End-Effector for Application in an Integrated System for Computer-Assisted Arthroscopy,” Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA (Apr. 20–25, 1997) pp. 1573–1579.Google Scholar
18. Cao, C. G. L., MacKenzie, C. L. and Payandeh, S., “Task and Motion Analyses in Endoscopic Surgery,” Proceedings of the 1996 International Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, Atlanta, GA, USA (Nov. 17–22, 1996), pp. 583–590.Google Scholar
19. Garcia-Ruiz, A., Gagner, M., Miller, J. H., Steiner, C. P. and Hahn, J. F., “Manual vs. robotically assisted laparoscopic surgery in the performance of basic manipulation and suturing tasks,” Arch. Surg. 133 (9), 957–961 (1998).Google Scholar
20. Cronin, J. A., Frecker, M. I. and Mathew, A., “Design of a compliant endoscopic suturing instrument,” ASME J. Med. Devices 2, 1–9 (2008).Google Scholar
21. Farkoush, S. H., “Using the Surgery Suturing Progress Consequences to Design a Minimally Invasive Suturing Device,” 3rd IEEE/EMBS International Summer School on Medical Devices and Biosensors, 2006, New York, USA (Aug. 30–Sep. 3, 2006) pp. 133–136.Google Scholar
22. Sclabas, G., Swain, P. and Swanstrom, L., “Endoluminal mathods for gatrotomy closure in Natural Orifice TransEntric Surgery (NOTES),” Surg. Innov. 13 (1), 23–30 (2009).Google Scholar
23. Swanstrom, L. L., Whiteford, M. and Khajanchee, Y., “Developing essential tools to enable transgastric surgery,” Surg. Endosc. 22 (3), 600–604 (2008).Google Scholar
24. Takayama, T., Omata, T., Kojima, K. and Tanaka, N., “Assemblable Pursestring Suture Instrument for Laparoscopic Surgery,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2008), Pasadena, California (May 19–23, 2008) pp. 3908–3913.Google Scholar
25. Nolan, P., Tovey, H. J., Stone, C. W. and Gardner, G. S., “Method of Employing Surgical Suturing Apparatus to Tie Knots,” Patent US5480406 (1996).Google Scholar
26. Hyosig, K. and Wen, J. T., “EndoBot: A Robotic Assistant in Minimally Invasive Surgeries,” Proceedings 2001 ICRA/IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 2, Seoul, Korea (May 21–26, 2001) pp. 2031–2036.Google Scholar
27. Kapoor, A. and Taylor, R. H., “A Constrained Optimization Approach to Virtual Fixtures for Multi-Handed Tasks,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Pasadena, California (May 19–23, 2008) pp. 3401–3406.Google Scholar
28. Kapoor, A., Simaan, N. and TayJor, R. H., “Suturing in Confined Spaces: Constrained Motion Control of a Hybrid 8-DoF Robot,” Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advanced Robotics (ICAR '05), Seattle, USA (Jul. 18–20, 2005) pp. 452–459.Google Scholar
29. Nageotte, F., Zanne, P., de Mathelin, M. and Doignon, C., “A Circular Needle Path Planning Method for Suituring in Laprascopic Surgery,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Barcelona, Spain (Apr. 18–22, 2005) pp. 516–521.Google Scholar
30. Nageotte, F., Zanne, P., Doignon, C. and de Mathelin, M., “Stitching planning in laparoscopic surgery: Towards robot-assisted suturing,” Int. J. Rob. Res. 28 (10), 1303–1321 (2009).Google Scholar
31. Iyer, S., Looi, T. and Drake, J., “A Single Arm, Single Camera System For Automated Suturing,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation, Karlsruhe, Germany (May 6–10, 2013) pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
32. Jackson, R. C. and Cenk, M. C., “Needle Path Planning for Autonomous Robotic Surgical Suturing,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation, Karlsruhe, Germany (May 6–10, 2013) pp. 1661–1667.Google Scholar
33. Mayer, H., Nagy, I., Knoll, A., Braun, E. U., Lange, R. and Bauernschmitt, R., “Adaptive Control for Human-Robot Skilltransfer: Trajectory Planning Based on Fluid Dynamics,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Roma, Italy (Apr. 10–14, 2007), pp. 1800–1807.Google Scholar
34. Mayer, H., Burschka, D., Knoll, A., Braun, E. U., Lange, R. and Bauernschmitt, R., “Human-Machine Skill Transfer Extended by a Scaffolding Framework,” ICRA 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Pasadena, California (May 19–23, 2008) pp. 2866–2871.Google Scholar
35. Van den Berg, J., Miller, S., Duckworth, D., Hu, H., Wan, A., Fu, X.-Y., Goldberg, K. and Abeel, P., “Superhuman Performance of Surgical Tasks by Robots Using Iterative Learning from Human-Guided Demonstrations,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Alaska, US (May, 3–8, 2010) pp. 2074–2081.Google Scholar
36. Xu, K., Goldman, R. E., Ding, J., Allen, P. K., Fowler, D. L. and Simaan, N., “System Design of an Insertable Robotic Effector Platform for Single Port Access (SPA) Surgery,” 2009 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, St. Louis, MO, USA (Oct. 11–15, 2009) pp. 5546–5552.Google Scholar
37. Simaan, N., Taylor, R. and Flint, P., “A Dexterous System for Laryngeal Surgery,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, New Orleans, LA, USA (Apr. 18–22, 2004) pp. 351–357.Google Scholar
38. Ding, J., Goldman, R. E., Xu, K., Allen, P. K., Fowler, D. L. and Simaan, N., “Design and coordination kinematics of an insertable robotic effectors platform for single-port access surgery,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 18 (5), 1612–1624 (2013).Google Scholar
39. Simaan, N., Bajo, A., Reiter, A., Wang, L., Allen, P. and Fowler, D., “Lessons learned using the insertable robotic effector platform (IREP) for single port access surgery,” J. Robot. Surg. 7 (3), 235–240 (2013).Google Scholar
40. Bajo, A., Goldman, R. E., Wang, L., Fowler, D. and Simaan, N., “Integration and Preliminary Evaluation of an Insertable Robotic Effectors Platform for Single Port Access Surgery,” Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), St. Paul, MN, USA (May 14–18, 2012) pp. 3381–3387.Google Scholar
41. Xu, K. and Simaan, N., “Analytic formulation for kinematics, statics and shape restoration of multi-backbone continuum robots via elliptic integrals,” ASME J. Mech. Robot. 2 (1), 11001–11006 (2010).Google Scholar
42. Nakamura, Y., Advanced Robotics Redundancy and Optimization (Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, 1991).Google Scholar