Multi‐imager compatible actuation principles in surgical robotics

Today's most successful surgical robots are perhaps surgeon‐driven systems, such as the daVinci (Intuitive Surgical Inc., USA, www.intuitivesurgical.com). These have already enabled surgery that was unattainable with classic instrumentation; however, at their present level of development, they have limited utility. The drawback of these systems is that they are independent self‐contained units, and as such, they do not directly take advantage of patient data. The potential of these new surgical tools lies much further ahead. Integration with medical imaging and information are needed for these devices to achieve their true potential. Surgical robots and especially their subclass of image‐guided systems require special design, construction and control compared to industrial types, due to the special requirements of the medical and imaging environments. Imager compatibility raises significant engineering challenges for the development of robotic manipulators with respect to imager access, safety, ergonomics, and above all the non‐interference with the functionality of the imager. These apply to all known medical imaging types, but are especially challenging for achieving compatibility with the class of MRI systems. Even though a large majority of robotic components may be redesigned to be constructed of MRI compatible materials, for other components such as the motors used in actuation, prescribing MRI compatible materials alone is not sufficient. The electromagnetic motors most commonly used in robotic actuation, for example, are incompatible by principle. As such, alternate actuation principles using “intervention friendly” energy should be adopted and/or devised for these special surgical and radiological interventions.

[1]  W. Kaiser,et al.  ROBITOM- ROBOT FOR BIOPSY AND THERAPY OF THE MAMMA , 2002 .

[2]  M. Bock,et al.  An MRI-Compatible Surgical Robot for Precise Radiological Interventions , 2003, Computer aided surgery : official journal of the International Society for Computer Aided Surgery.

[3]  William M. Wells,et al.  Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention — MICCAI’98 , 1998, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[4]  F. Jolesz Neurosurgical suite of the future. II. , 2001, Neuroimaging clinics of North America.

[5]  W. Kaiser,et al.  Robotic system for biopsy and therapy of breast lesions in a high-field whole-body magnetic resonance tomography unit. , 2000, Investigative radiology.

[6]  J. Schenck The role of magnetic susceptibility in magnetic resonance imaging: MRI magnetic compatibility of the first and second kinds. , 1996, Medical physics.

[7]  R. Satava The Operating Room of the Future: Observations and Commentary , 2003, Seminars in laparoscopic surgery.

[8]  Andreas Anayiotos,et al.  Comparative MRI compatibility of 316 L stainless steel alloy and nickel-titanium alloy stents. , 2002, Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

[9]  Russell H. Taylor,et al.  Medical robotics in computer-integrated surgery , 2003, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[10]  H Iseki,et al.  Development of an MRI-compatible needle insertion manipulator for stereotactic neurosurgery. , 1995, Journal of image guided surgery.

[11]  M. McDermott Neurosurgical suite of the future. I. , 2001, Neuroimaging clinics of North America.

[12]  T Tynes,et al.  Accessory equipment considerations with respect to MRI compatibility , 1998, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[13]  Ron Kikinis,et al.  MR Compatibility of Mechatronic Devices: Design Criteria , 1999, MICCAI.

[14]  K Chinzei,et al.  Towards MRI guided surgical manipulator. , 2001, Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research.