A development of assistant surgical robot system based on surgical-operation-by-wire and hands-on-throttle-and-stick

BackgroundRobot-assisted laparoscopic surgery offers several advantages compared with open surgery and conventional minimally invasive surgery. However, one issue that needs to be resolved is a collision between the robot arm and the assistant instrument. This is mostly caused by miscommunication between the surgeon and the assistant. To resolve this limitation, an assistant surgical robot system that can be simultaneously manipulated via a wireless controller is proposed to allow the surgeon to control the assistant instrument.MethodsThe system comprises two novel master interfaces (NMIs), a surgical instrument with a gripper actuated by a micromotor, and 6-axis robot arm. Two NMIs are attached to master tool manipulators of da Vinci research kit (dVRK) to control the proposed system simultaneously with patient side manipulators of dVRK. The developments of the surgical instrument and NMI are based on surgical-operation-by-wire concept and hands-on-throttle-and-stick concept from the earlier research, respectively. Tests for checking the accuracy, latency, and power consumption of the NMI are performed. The gripping force, reaction time, and durability are assessed to validate the surgical instrument. The workspace is calculated for estimating the clinical applicability. A simple peg task using the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery board and an in vitro test are executed with three novice volunteers.ResultsThe NMI was operated for 185 min and reflected the surgeon’s decision successfully with a mean latency of 132 ms. The gripping force of the surgical instrument was comparable to that of conventional systems and was consistent even after 1000 times of gripping motion. The reaction time was 0.4 s. The workspace was calculated to be 8397.4 cm3. Recruited volunteers were able to execute the simple peg task within the cut-off time and successfully performed the in vitro test without any collision.ConclusionsVarious experiments were conducted and it is verified that the proposed assistant surgical robot system enables collision-free and simultaneous operation of the dVRK’s robot arm and the proposed assistant robot arm. The workspace is appropriate for the performance of various kinds of surgeries. Therefore, the proposed system is expected to provide higher safety and effectiveness for the current surgical robot system.

[1]  Blake Hannaford,et al.  Raven-II: An Open Platform for Surgical Robotics Research , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[2]  Nicole D. Bouvy,et al.  The end of robot-assisted laparoscopy? A critical appraisal of scientific evidence on the use of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery , 2013, Surgical Endoscopy.

[3]  E. Frost,et al.  Anesthetic care of the patient for robotic surgery. , 2008, Middle East journal of anaesthesiology.

[4]  Hee Chan Kim,et al.  A grip force model for the da Vinci end-effector to predict a compensation force , 2014, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[5]  Per-Olof Persson,et al.  Smoothing by Savitzky-Golay and Legendre Filters , 2003, Mathematical Systems Theory in Biology, Communications, Computation, and Finance.

[6]  Jan Persson,et al.  Robot‐assisted laparoscopic myomectomy; a feasible technique for removal of unfavorably localized myomas , 2009, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[7]  Michael P Esposito,et al.  Use of fourth arm in da Vinci robot-assisted extraperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy: novel technique. , 2006, Urology.

[8]  Arnold P. Advincula,et al.  Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Myomectomy , 2008 .

[9]  L. Andrade,et al.  Design of Boeing 777 electric system , 1992, IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine.

[10]  Myriam J. Curet,et al.  Introduction to the Robotic System , 2014 .

[11]  A. Lanfranco,et al.  Robotic Surgery: A Current Perspective , 2004, Annals of surgery.

[12]  Sachin Kathuria,et al.  Defining the Pros and Cons of Open, Conventional Laparoscopy, and Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty in a Developing Nation , 2014, Advances in urology.

[13]  Gourab Sen Gupta,et al.  Master–Slave Control of a Teleoperated Anthropomorphic Robotic Arm With Gripping Force Sensing , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement.

[14]  Chao He,et al.  Workspace analysis based port placement planning in robotic-assisted cholecystectomy , 2011, 2011 IEEE International Symposium on IT in Medicine and Education.

[15]  Ki-Young Kim,et al.  A Novel Surgical Manipulator with Workspace-Conversion Ability for Telesurgery , 2013, IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics.

[16]  Hee Chan Kim,et al.  Pneumatic-type surgical robot end-effector for laparoscopic surgical-operation-by-wire , 2014, BioMedical Engineering OnLine.

[17]  Ken Catchpole,et al.  Human Factors and Outcomes in Pediatric Cardiac Surgery , 2015 .

[18]  N. P. Reddy,et al.  Forces in surgical tools: comparison between laparoscopic and surgical forceps , 1996, Proceedings of 18th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[19]  Won-Ho Shin,et al.  Surgical Robot System for Single-Port Surgery With Novel Joint Mechanism , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[20]  F. Pirozzi,et al.  Advantages and limits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: preliminary experience , 2004, Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques.

[21]  N. P. Reddy,et al.  Towards force feedback in laparoscopic surgical tools , 1994, Proceedings of 16th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[22]  Levente Kovács,et al.  Models for force control in telesurgical robot systems , 2015 .

[23]  Jacques Felblinger,et al.  Determination of the latency effects on surgical performance and the acceptable latency levels in telesurgery using the dV-Trainer® simulator , 2014, Surgical Endoscopy.

[24]  G. Sung,et al.  Robotic laparoscopic surgery: a comparison of the DA Vinci and Zeus systems. , 2001, Urology.

[25]  Ki-Hwan Lee,et al.  Two-port access versus four-port access laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy , 2014, Obstetrics & gynecology science.

[26]  M. Susan Hallbeck,et al.  Overview of Human Factors and Ergonomics in the OR, with an Emphasis on Minimally Invasive Surgeries , 2014 .

[27]  Laurent Grisoni,et al.  An intestinal surgery simulator: real-time collision processing and visualization , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[28]  B. Kang,et al.  Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Robotic and Laparoscopic Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: The Learning Curve of Robotic Surgery , 2012, Journal of gastric cancer.

[29]  Thomas M. Krummel,et al.  Robotics in General Surgery , 2008 .

[30]  G.W. Dachs,et al.  A Novel Surgical Robot Design: Minimizing the Operating Envelope Within the Sterile Field , 2006, 2006 International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[31]  Levente Kovács,et al.  Simulation and control for telerobots in space medicine , 2012 .

[32]  William J. Peine,et al.  Design of an endoluminal NOTES robotic system , 2007, 2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[33]  FIMechE,et al.  Fly by wire control system , 1972 .

[34]  William Kondo,et al.  Transumbilical Laparoscopic Bilateral Nephrectomy , 2009 .

[35]  Shane Farritor,et al.  Single-Site Colectomy With Miniature In Vivo Robotic Platform , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[36]  C. Tenning,et al.  Design of the Boeing 777 electric system , 1992, Proceedings of the IEEE 1992 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference@m_NAECON 1992.

[37]  G. Caravaglios,et al.  Robotics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. , 2003, Archives of surgery.

[38]  Shane Farritor,et al.  Gross Positioning System for In Vivo Surgical Devices , 2013 .

[39]  G. Sung,et al.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a pilot study. , 1999, Urology.

[40]  J. Himpens,et al.  Feasibility of Robotic Laparoscopic Surgery: 146 Cases , 2001, World Journal of Surgery.