Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:05:44.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimization of a Spherical Decoupled Mechanism for Neuro-Endoscopy Based on Experimental Kinematic Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2019

T. Essomba ,
L. Nguyen Vu  and
C.-T Wu
T. Essomba
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Central UniversityZhongli, Taiwan
L. Nguyen Vu
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Central UniversityZhongli, Taiwan
C.-T Wu*
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosurgery, Medical Augmented Reality Research Center, Chang Gung Memorial HospitalLinkou Medical Center, Taoyuan City, Taiwan
*
*Corresponding author ([email protected])
Get access

Abstract

The neuro-endoscopy is a surgical technique that allows the neurosurgeon to maintain a visual contact while operating inside the brain of a patient. A special instrument called the neuro-endoscope is inserted in the brain until the neurosurgeon reaches his/her target. Its manipulation requires a high level of training for neurosurgeons. To enforce both quality and safety of neuro-endoscopy, we propose a robotic manipulator based on a Spherical Decoupled Mechanism. This mechanical architecture has been modified from a 5-Bar Spherical Linkages and adapted to this medical application. It is able to generate a Remote Center of Motion of 2 Degrees of Freedom. It merges the advantages of parallel mechanisms with the kinematic and control simplicity of decoupled mechanisms, while having a very simple architecture. Motion capture experiments using a brain simulation model have been performed with a team of neurosurgeons to obtain the kinematic data of the neuro-endoscope during brain exploration. Based on the identified workspace, the mechanism has been optimized using kinematic performance and architectural compactness as criteria. An optimum mechanism has been selected, showing better kinematic performances than the original 5-bar spherical linkage mechanism.

Keywords

Spherical Decoupled MechanismNeuro-endoscopyOptimizationMotion Capture Experiments
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Mechanics , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 133 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Society of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Jaffray, B., “Minimally invasive surgery,” Archives of Disease in Childhood, 90, pp. 537–542 (2005).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okada, Y., Akai, T., Okamoto, K., Iida, T., Takata, H., and Iizuka, H., “A comparative study of the treatment of chronic subdural hematoma—burr hole drainage versus burr hole irrigation,” Surgical Neurology, 57(6), pp. 405–409 (2002).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enchev, Y. and Oi, S., “Historical trends of neuro-endoscopic surgical techniques in the treatment of hydrocephalus,” Neurosurgery Review, 31(3), pp. 249–262, (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, H. J, Cundy, T. P., Hughes-Hallett, A., Yang, G.-Z, Darzi, A. and Nandi, D., “Endoscopic and Keyhole Endoscope-assisted Neurosurgical Approaches: A Qualitative Survey on Technical Challenges and Technological Solutions,” British Journal of Neurosurgery, 28(5), pp. 606–610 (2014).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kraft, B. M., Jäger, C., Kraft, K., Leibl, B. J. and Bittner, R., “The AESOP robot system in laparoscopic surgery,” Surgical Endoscopy, 18, pp. 1216–1223, (2004).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maeso, S., Reza, M., Mayol, J. A, Blasco, J. A, Guerra, M., Andradas, E. and Plana, M. N., “Efficacy of the Da Vinci surgical system in abdominal surgery compared with that of laparoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Annals of Surgery, 252(2), pp. 254–262, (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, J. A., Cinquin, P., Troccaz, J., Voros, S., Berkelman, P., Descotes, J. L., Letoublon, C. and Rambeaud, J. J., “Development of miniaturized light endoscope-holder robot for laparoscopic surgery,” Journal of Endourology, 21(8), pp. 911–914 (2007).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voros, S., Haber, G.-P., Menudet, J.-F., Long, J.-A. and Cinquin, P., “ViKY Robotic Scope Holder: Initial Clinical Experience and Preliminary Results Using Instrument Tracking,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 15(6), pp. 879–886, (2010).Google Scholar
Stolzenburg, J. U., Franz, T., Kallidonis, P., Minh, D., Dietel, A., Hicks, J., Nicolaus, M., Al-Aown, A. and Liatsikos, E., “Comparison of the FreeHand robotic camera holder with human assistants during endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy,” BJU International, 107(6), pp. 970–974 (2011).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wapler, M., Urban, V., Weisener, T., Stallkamp, J., Durr, M. and Hiller, A.: A Stewart Platform for Precision Surgery, Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 25(4), pp. 329–334 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, M., Krishnan, R., Raabe, A. and Seifert, V., “Robot-Assisted Navigated Endoscopic Ventriculostomy: Implementation of a New Technology and First Clinical Results,” Acta Neurochirurgica, 146(7), pp. 697–704 (2004).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cabuk, B., Ceylan, S., Anik, I., Tugasaygi, M. and Kizir, S., “A Haptic Guided Robotic System for Endoscope Positioning and Holding,” Journal of Turkish Neurosurgery, 25(4), pp. 601–607 (2015).Google ScholarPubMed
Trevillot, V., Sobral, R., Dombre, D., Poignet, P., Herman, B. and Crampette, B., “Innovative endoscopic sino-nasal and anterior skull base robotics,” International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, 8(6), pp. 977–987 (2013).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herma, B., Dehez, B., Tran Duy, K., Raucent, B., Dombre, E. and Krut, S., “Design and preliminary in vivo validation of a robotic laparoscope holder for minimally invasive surgery,” International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 5(3), pp. 319–326, (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niccolini, M., Castelli, V., Diversi, C., Kang, B., Mussa, F. and Sinibaldi, E., “Development and Preliminary Assessment of a Robotic Platform for Neuroendoscopy Based on a Lightweight Robot,” International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 12(1), pp. 4–17 (2015).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carricato, M., “Decoupled and Homokinetic Transmission of Rotational Motion via Constant-Velocity Joints in Closed-Chain Orientational Manipulators,” ASME Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, 1(4), pp. 041008 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Najafi, F. and Sepehri, N., “A robotic wrist for remote ultrasound imaging”, Mechanism and Machine Theory, 46(8), pp. 1153–1170 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosselin, C., St-Pierre, E. and Gagne, M., “On the Development of the Agile Eye: Mechanical Design, Control Issues and Experimentation,” IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 3(4), pp. 29–37 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R. H., Funda, J., Grossman, D. D., Karidis, J. P. and LaRose, D. A., “Remote center-of-motion robot for surgery,” U.S. Patent 5397323 A (1992).Google Scholar
Rosen, J., Brown, J. D., Chang, L., Barreca, M., Sinanan, M. and Hannaford, B., “The BlueDRAGON - A System for Measuring the Kinematics and the Dynamics of Minimally Invasive Surgical Tools In- Vivo,” Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation, 2, pp. 1876–1881, Washington DC, USA (May 11–15 2002).Google Scholar
Salcudean, S. E., Zhu, W. H., Abolmaesumi, P., Bachmann, S. and Lawrence, P. D., “A Robot System for Medical Ultrasound,” IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control, 60(3), pp. 507–523 (2013).Google Scholar
Kuo, C.-H. and Dai, J.-S., “Kinematics of a fully-decoupled remote center-of-motion parallel manipulator for minimally invasive surgery,” ASME Journal of Medical Device, 6(2), pp. 021008 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adelstein, B. D., and Rosen, M. J., “Design and Implementation of a Force Reflecting Manipulandum for Manual Control Research,” ASME Advances in Robotics, 42, (1992).Google Scholar
Huang, Z. and Yao, Y. L., “A New Closed-Form Kinematics of the Generalized 3-DOF Spherical Parallel Manipulator,” Robotica, 17, pp. 475–485 (1999).Google Scholar
Wu, C., Liu, X.-J. and Wang, J., “Force Transmission Analysis of Spherical 5R Parallel Manipulators,” ASME/IFToMM International Conference on Reconfigurable Mechanisms and Robots (ReMAR), pp. 331–336, London, UK (June 22-24, 2009).Google Scholar
Wu, C., Liu, X.-J., Wang, L. and Wang, J., “Optimal Design of Spherical 5R Parallel Manipulators Considering the Motion/Force Transmissibility,” ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 132(3), pp. 031002 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Essomba, T, Nguyen Vu, L., “Kinematic Analysis of a New Five-Bar Spherical Decoupled Mechanism with Two-Degrees of Freedom Remote Center of Motion”, Mechanism and Machine Theory, 119, pp. 184–197 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Essomba, T., Laribi, M. A., Zeghloul, S. and Poisson, G., “Optimal synthesis of a spherical parallel mechanism for medical application,” Robotica, 34(3), pp. 671–686 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nariman-Zadeh, N., Felezi, M., Jamali, A., Ganji, M., “Pareto optimal synthesis of four-bar mechanisms for path generation,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, 44(1), pp. 180–191 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khorshidi, M., Soheilypour, M., Peyro, M., Atai, A, Shariat Panahi, M., “Optimal design of four-bar mechanisms using a hybrid multi-objective GA with adaptive local search,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, 46(10), pp. 1453–1465 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar