Consideration of geometric constraints regarding MR-compatible interventional robotic devices

2010 3rd IEEE RAS and EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, BioRob 2010

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 355-360

  Keroglou, Christoforos ^a   Seimenis, Ioannis ^b   Tsekos, Nikolaos V ^c   Pitris, Constantinos ^a   Eracleous, Eleni ^b   Christoforou, Eftychios G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS   (Cyprus)

^b Medical Diagnostic Center Ayios Therissos   (Cyprus)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Geometric MR compatibility; Interventional robotics; MR compatibility; MR guided interventions

Indexed keywords

ANATOMICAL REGIONS; DIGITAL MODEL; EFFECTIVE FIELD; GEOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS; GEOMETRIC CONSTRAINT; IMAGE-BASED ANALYSIS; IMAGING MODALITY; INTERVENTION PLANNING; INTERVENTIONAL; MAGNETIC NATURE; MR SCANNERS; MR-COMPATIBILITY; MR-COMPATIBLE; MR-GUIDED INTERVENTIONS; PRE-OPERATIVE PLANNING; ROBOTIC DEVICES; ROBOTIC SYSTEMS;

DESIGN; GEOMETRY; MEDICAL COMPUTING; ROBOTICS; ROBOTS; SCANNING; THREE DIMENSIONAL; THREE DIMENSIONAL COMPUTER GRAPHICS;

ROBOT PROGRAMMING;

EID: 78650394933     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/BIOROB.2010.5626927     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (11)

1. E. Christoforou, E. Akbudak, A. Ozcan, M. Karanikolas, and N. V. Tsekos. Performance of interventions with manipulator-driven realtime MR-guidance: Implementation and initial in vitro tests. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 25(1):69-77, 2007.
2. G. Schaefers. Testing MR safety and compatibility. IEEE Engineering in Mecicine and Biology Magazine, 27(3):23-27, May/June 2008.
3. N. V. Tsekos, A. Khanicheh, E. Christoforou, and C. Mavroidis. Magnetic resonance-compatible robotic and mechatronics systems for image-guided interventions and rehabilitation: a review study. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 9:351-387, 2007.
4. F. G. Shellock. Radiofrequency energy-induced heating during MR procedures: A review. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 12(1):30-36, July 2000.
5. M. F. Dempsey, B. Condon, and D. M. Hadley. Investigation of the factors responsible for burns during MRI. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 13(4):627-631, April 2001.
6. K. Masamune, E. Kobayashi, Y. Masutani, M. Suzuki, T. Dohi, H. Iseki, and K. Takakura. Development of an MRI-compatible needle insertion manipulator for stereotactic neurosurgery. Journal of Image Guided Surgery, 1(4):242-248, 1995.
7. K. Chinzei, N. Hata, A.Jolesz, and R. Kikinis. MR compatible surgical assist robot: System integration and preliminary feasibility study. In Proc. of Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 921-930, Pittsburgh, PA, October 11-14 2000. Springer.
8. N. V. Tsekos, A. Özcan, and E. Christoforou. A prototype manipulator for MR-guided interventions inside standard cylindrical MRI scanners. ASME Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, 127:972-980, November 2005.
9. A. Melzer, B. Gutmann, T. Remmele, R. Wolf, A. Lukoscheck, M. Bock, H. Bardenheuer, and H. Fischer. INNOMOTION for percutaneous image-guided interventions. IEEE Engineering in Mecicine and Biology Magazine, 27(3):66-73, May/June 2008.
10. G. R. Sutherland, I. Latour, and A. D. Greer. Integrating an image-guided robot with intraoperative MRI. IEEE Engineering in Mecicine and Biology Magazine, 27(3):59-65, May/June 2008.
11. E. G. Christoforou, N. V. Tsekos, and A. Ozcan. Design and testing of a robotic system for MR image-guided interventions. J. of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 47(2):175-196, October 2006.