4.5 Article

A novel manipulator with needle insertion forces feedback for robot-assisted lumbar puncture

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2226

关键词

force perception; lumbar puncture; manipulator design; needle insertion

类别

资金

  1. Interdisciplinary Program of Shanghai Jiao Tong University [ZH2018QNA29]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study developed a robot-assisted system to improve the precision of needle insertion during pediatric lumbar puncture, focusing on accurately sensing puncture forces and evaluating operator perception. Key features of the robot include backdrivable joints, physical human-robot cooperation, low friction actuation system, and remote center of motion mechanism. Experimental results showed the manipulator could accurately position the needle tip at targeted locations.
Background The use of lumbar puncture for paediatric diagnosis and treatment, such as cerebrospinal fluid sampling and intracranial pressure measurements, is steadily increasing. However, the standard 'blind' technique makes it difficult to attain accurate needle insertion. Methods In this study, we developed a robot-assisted system to improve the precision of needle insertion during lumbar puncture. The manipulator can perform orientation, insertion and rotation of the needle as well as linear motion at targeted locations. We focused on accurately sensing the puncture forces during the needle insertion phase and evaluated the piercing force perception of the operator. Results The main features of the robot, such as backdrivable joints, physical human-robot cooperation, actuation system with low friction and remote centre of motion mechanism, can enhance overall safety. Conclusions Experimental results using a lumbar puncture phantom proved that the manipulator could position the needle tip at targeted locations with good accuracy. The data obtained from the test system also showed that the loss of resistance and peak forces for stiff tissues were accurately perceived by the operator.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据