4.6 Article

Effective Manipulation in Confined Spaces of Highly Articulated Robotic Instruments for Single Access Surgery

期刊

IEEE ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION LETTERS
卷 2, 期 3, 页码 1704-1711

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/LRA.2017.2668465

关键词

Calibration and identification; dexterous manipulation; kinematics; medical robots and systems; telerobotics and teleoperation

类别

资金

  1. Department of Health
  2. Wellcome Trust [HICF-T4-299]
  3. Imperial College London
  4. EPSRC U.K
  5. EPSRC [EP/M000257/1, EP/N027132/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [1372090, EP/M000257/1, EP/N027132/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Medical Research Council [1241530] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The field of robotic surgery increasingly advances towards highly articulated and continuum robots, requiring new kinematic strategies to enable users to perform dexterous manipulation in confined workspaces. This development is driven by surgical interventions accessing the surgical workspace through natural orifices such as the mouth or the anus. Due to the long and narrow nature of these access pathways, external triangulation at the fulcrum point is very limited or absent, which makes introducing multiple degrees of freedom at the distal end of the instrument necessary. Additionally, high force and miniaturization requirements make the control of such instruments particularly challenging. This letter presents the kinematic considerations needed to effectively manipulate these novel instruments and allow us their dexterous control in confined spaces. A nonlinear calibration model is further used to map joint to actuator space and improve significantly the precision of the instrument's motion. The effectiveness of the presented approach is quantified with bench tests, and the usability of the system is assessed by three user studies simulating the requirements of a realistic surgical task.

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

4.6
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