A novel remote center of motion mechanism for the force-reflective master robot of haptic tele-surgery systems

International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 129-139

  Hadavand, Mostafa ^a,b   Mirbagheri, Alireza ^b   Behzadipour, Saeed ^a   Farahmand, Farzam ^a,b  

^a SHARIF UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Iran)

^b TEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

Author keywords

Fulcrum effect; Kinematics analysis; Moving inertia; Parallelogram mechanism; Trajectory tracking

Indexed keywords

DEGREES OF FREEDOM (MECHANICS); END EFFECTORS; KINEMATICS; ROBOTIC SURGERY; SURGICAL EQUIPMENT;

FULCRUM EFFECT; HAPTICS; KINEMATIC ANALYSIS; MANIPULABILITY; MASTER ROBOT; MOVING INERTIA; PARALLELOGRAM MECHANISMS; REMOTE CENTER OF MOTIONS; TELESURGERY; TRAJECTORY-TRACKING;

MECHANISMS;

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY; EXPERIMENTAL TEST; KINEMATICS; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY; MOTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM; REMOTE CENTER OF MOTION; ROBOTICS; TACTILE STIMULATION; TELESURGERY; BIOMECHANICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DEVICES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HAND; HUMAN; JOINT CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS; MOTION; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURE;

BIOMECHANICAL PHENOMENA; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HAND; HUMANS; MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; MOTION; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; ROBOTIC SURGICAL PROCEDURES;

EID: 84901839905     PISSN: 14785951     EISSN: 1478596X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1515     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Williams LF, Jr, Chapman WC, Bonau RA, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with open cholecystectomy in a single center. Am J Surg 1993; 165: 459-465.
2. Bass EB, Pitt HA, Lillemoe KD. Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus open cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 1993; 165: 466-471.
3. Fullum T, Ladapo J, Borah B, Gunnarsson C. Comparison of the clinical and economic outcomes between open and minimally invasive appendectomy and colectomy: evidence from a large commercial payer database. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 845-853.
4. Thielmann S, Seibold U, Haslinger R, et al. MICA - a new generation of versatile instruments in robotic surgery. Proceedings of IEEE/RSJ 2010 International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2010; 871-878.
5. Mirbagheri A, Farahmand F. A triple-jaw actuated and sensorized instrument for grasping large organs during minimally invasive robotic surgery. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 2011; 9: 83-93.
6. Goepel T, Haertl F, Schneider A, et al. Automation of a suturing device for minimally invasive surgery. Surg Endosc Intervent Technique 2011; 25: 2100-2104.
7. Zahraee AH, Szewczyk J, Paik JK, Morel G. Robotic hand-held surgical device: evaluation of end-effector's kinematics and development of proof-of-concept prototypes. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention: Part III, Beijing, China. Springer-Verlag, 2010: 432-439.
8. Taylor RH, Funda J, Eldridge B, et al. A telerobotic assistant for laparoscopic surgery. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 1995; 14: 279-288.
9. Guthart GS, Salisbury KJ. Intuitive telesurgery system: overview and application. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2000: 618-621.
10. Cavusoglu MC, Tendick F, Sastry SS. Telesurgery and surgical simulation: haptic interfaces to real and virtual surgical environments. In Touch in Virtual Environments: IMSC Series in Multimedia, McLaughlin ML, Hespanha JP, Sukhatme G (eds). Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York, 2001.
11. Tavakoli M, Patel RV, Moallem M. A force reflective master-slave system for minimally invasive surgery. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Las Vegas, NV, 2003: 3077-3082.
12. Lum MJH, Friedman DCW, Sankaranarayanan G, et al. The RAVEN: Design and validation of a telesurgery system. Int J Robotics Res 2009; 28: 1183-1197.
13. Tholey G. A Teleoperative haptic feedback framework for computer-aided minimally invasive surgery. PhD thesis, Drexel University, 2007.
14. Jungwon Y, Jeha R. Design, fabrication, and evaluation of a new haptic device using a parallel mechanism. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 2001; 6: 221-233.
15. Rajh M, Glodež S, Flašker J, et al. Design and analysis of an fMRI compatible haptic robot. Robotics Comput-Int Manuf 2011; 27: 267-275.
16. Kuo C-H, Dai JS, Dasgupta P. Kinematic design considerations for minimally invasive surgical robots: an overview. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 2006; 8: 127-145.
17. Nowlin WCU, Niemeyer GDU, Guthart GSU. Alignment of master and slave in a minimally invasive surgical apparatus. United States Patent, US6364888, 2006.
18. Trejos AL, Patel RV, Naish MD. Force sensing and its applications in minimally invasive surgery and therapy: a survey. Proc IME, Part C: J Mech Eng Sci 2010; 224: 1435-1454.
19. Hadavand M, Mirbagheri A, Salarieh H, Farahmand F. Design of a force-reflective master robot for haptic telesurgery applications: RoboMaster1. Proceedings of 33rd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC '11). Boston, USA, Aug. 30- Sep. 3, 2011; art. no. 6091779: 7037-7040.
20. Craig JJ. Introduction to Robotics Mechanics and Control 3rd edn. Pearson Education, London, 2005.
21. Spaelter U, Moix T, Ilic D, et al. A 4-dof haptic device for hysteroscopy simulation. Proceedings of 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2004), vol. 4, 2004: 3257-3263.
22. Lum MJH, Rosen J, Sinanan MN, Hannaford B. Kinematic optimization of a spherical mechanism for a minimally invasive surgical robot. Proceedings on ICRA '04. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 1, 2004; 829-834.