Experimental comparison of kinematics and control interfaces for laparoscope positioners

Ergonomics is known to be poor during laparoscopic surgery because of the minimal access and the manual handling of the laparoscope, which is required to display intra-abdominal images on monitors in the absence of direct vision. Several robots were developed over the last two decades to hold and move the laparoscope, so as to offer better image stability and free the assistant’s hands and mind. The purpose of this study is to compare the motion performance of these devices, including the EVOLAP robot designed at UCL, and to assess the influence of two main factors on motion duration: the kinematic architecture and the control capabilities of the human-robot interface (i.e. the number of directions). An experimental bench was set up using a modified version of the EVOLAP robot, capable of generating laparoscope motions identical to the ones induced by the three most common kinematics among existing laparoscope positioners. Results show that the kinematics has a large influence on motion duration. It also appears that performance is increased significantly with a control interface that provides more motion directions that the commercially available ones.

[1]  Li-Ming Su,et al.  Comparison of surgical performance during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy of two robotic camera holders, EndoAssist and AESOP: a pilot study. , 2006, Urology.

[2]  Y. Yavuz,et al.  A Comparative Experimental Study Evaluating the Performance of Surgical Robots Aesop and Endosista , 2000, Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques.

[3]  Philippe Cinquin,et al.  Automatic Localization of Laparoscopic Instruments for the Visual Servoing of an Endoscopic Camera Holder , 2006, MICCAI.

[4]  Luc Soler,et al.  Autonomous 3-D positioning of surgical instruments in robotized laparoscopic surgery using visual servoing , 2003, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[5]  P. Finlay,et al.  Controlled trial of the introduction of a robotic camera assistant (Endo Assist) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy , 2002, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[6]  Alin Albu-Schäffer,et al.  DLR MiroSurge: a versatile system for research in endoscopic telesurgery , 2010, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.

[7]  Jacques Marescaux,et al.  Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery , 2001, Nature.

[8]  J. Donnez,et al.  Gynecologic laparoscopic surgery with a palm-controlled laparoscope holder. , 2004, The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists.

[9]  Fumio Miyazaki,et al.  A laparoscope positioning system with the surgeon's face image-based human-machine interface , 2001, CARS.

[10]  Aaas News,et al.  Book Reviews , 1893, Buffalo Medical and Surgical Journal.

[11]  G. G. Stokes "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[12]  Robert Stone,et al.  Comparison of Task Performance of the Camera-Holder Robots EndoAssist and Aesop , 2003, Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques.

[13]  Brice Gayet,et al.  Modified Robotic Lightweight Endoscope (ViKY) Validation In Vivo in a Porcine Model , 2007, Surgical innovation.

[14]  Dominiek Reynaerts,et al.  A laparoscopic robot with intuitive interface for gynecological laser laparoscopy , 2003, 2003 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.03CH37422).

[15]  Bruno Dehez,et al.  Design and preliminary in vivo validation of a robotic laparoscope holder for minimally invasive surgery , 2009, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[17]  Chin-Hsing Kuo,et al.  Kinematic design considerations for minimally invasive surgical robots: an overview , 2012, The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS.

[18]  Fumio Miyazaki,et al.  Development of a safe disposable laparoscope manipulator using hydraulic actuators , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO).