No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Enabling personalization of a robotic surgery procedure via a surgery training simulator
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 July 2022
Abstract
Although robotic or robot-assisted surgery has been increasingly used by many surgical disciplines, its application in cranial or skull base surgery is still in its infancy. Master-slave teleoperation setting of these robotic systems enables these surgical procedures to be replicated in a virtual reality environment for surgeon training purposes. A variety of teleoperation modes were previously determined with respect to the motion capability of the surgeon’s hand that wears the ring as the surgeon handles a surgical tool inside the surgical workspace. In this surgery training simulator developed for a robot-assisted endoscopic skull base surgery, a new strategy is developed to identify the preferred motion axes of the surgeon. This simulator is designed specifically for tuning the teleoperation system for each surgeon via the identification. This tuning capability brings flexibility to adjust the system operation with respect to the motion characteristics of the surgeon.
Keywords
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Yiannakopoulou, E., Nikiteas, N., Perrea, D. and Tsigris, C., “Virtual reality simulators and training in laparoscopic surgery,” Int. J. Surg. 13, 60–64 (2015).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okamura, A. M., “Haptics in Robot-Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery,” In: The Encyclopedia of Medical Robotics: Volume 1 Minimally Invasive Surgical Robotics (World Scientific, Singapore, 2019) pp. 317–339.Google Scholar
Perrenot, C., Perez, M., Tran, N., Jehl, J-P., Felblinger, J., Bresler, L. and Hubert, J., “The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer® is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills,” Surg. Endosc. 26(9), 2587–2593 (2012).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dede, M. I. C., Kiper, G., Ayav, T., Özdemirel, B., Tatlıcıoğlu, E., Hanalioglu, S., Işıkay, İ. and Berker, M., “Human-robot interfaces of the NeuRoboScope: A minimally invasive endoscopic pituitary tumor surgery robotic assistance system,” J. Med. Device 15(1), 011106 (2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, X., Zhao, B., Zhao, S., He, Y., Sun, Y., Gao, P., Hu, Y. and Zhang, J., “An Endoscope Holder with Automatic Tracking Feature for Nasal Surgery,” In:
2016 IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation (ICIA 2016)
, Ningbo, China (2016) pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Chumnanvej, S., Pillai, B. M., Chalongwongse, S. and Suthakorn, J., “Endonasal endoscopic transsphenoidal approach robot prototype: A cadaveric trial,” Asian J. Surg. 44(1), 345–351 (2021).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, Y., Lai, W., Cao, L., Burdet, E. and Phee, S. J., “Design and evaluation of a foot-controlled robotic system for endoscopic surgery,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 6(2), 2469–2476 (2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pisla, D., Gherman, B., Plitea, N., Gyurka, B., Vaida, C., Vlad, L., Grauri, F., Radu, C., Suciu, M., Szilaghi, A., Stoica, A., “PARASURG hybrid parallel robot for minimally invasive surgery,” Chirurgia 106(5), 619–625 (2011).Google ScholarPubMed
Remirez, A. A., Rox, M. F., Bruns, T. L., Russell, P. T. and Webster III, R. J., “A Teleoperated Surgical Robot System,” In: Neurosurgical Robotics (Humana, New York, NY, 2021) pp. 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, V. F., Garcia-Morales, I., Fraile-Marinero, J. C., Perez-Turiel, J., Muñoz-Garcia, A., Bauzano, E., Rivas-Blanco, I., Sabater-Navarro, J. M. and de la Fuente, E., “Collaborative robotic assistant platform for endonasal surgery: Preliminary in-vitro trials,” Sensors 21(7), 2320 (2021).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colan, J., Nakanishi, J., Aoyama, T. and Hasegawa, Y., “A cooperative human-robot interface for constrained manipulation in robot-assisted endonasal surgery,” Appl. Sci. 10(14), 4809 (2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogiwara, T., Goto, T., Nagm, A. and Hongo, K., “Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery using the iArmS operation support robot: Initial experience in 43 patients,” Neurosurg. Focus 42(5), E10 (2017).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
He, Y., Deng, Z. and Zhang, J., “Design and voice-based control of a nasal endoscopic surgical robot,” CAAI Trans. Intell. Technol. 6(1), 123–131 (2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, Y., Zhang, P., Qi, X., Zhao, B., Li, S. and Hu, Y., “Endoscopic path planning in robot-assisted endoscopic nasal surgery,” IEEE Access 8, 17039–17048 (2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, Y., Hu, Y., Zhang, P., Zhao, B., Qi, X. and Zhang, J., “Human-robot cooperative control based on virtual fixture in robot-assisted endoscopic sinus surgery,” Appl. Sci. 9(8), 1659 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okuda, H., Okamoto, J., Takumi, Y., Kakehata, S. and Muragaki, Y., “The iArmS robotic armrest prolongs endoscope lens-wiping intervals in endoscopic sinus surgery,” Surg. Innov. 27(5), 515–522 (2020).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ateş, G., Majani, R. and Dede, M. I. C., “Design of a Teleoperation Scheme with a Wearable Master for Minimally Invasive Surgery,” In: New Trends in Medical and Service Robotics (Springer, Cham, 2019) pp. 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaşır, A., Kiper, G. and Dede, M. C., “Kinematic design of a non-parasitic 2R1T parallel mechanism with remote center of motion to be used in minimally invasive surgery applications,” Mech. Mach. Theory 153(3), 104013 (2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar