Review of surgical robotics user interface: what is the best way to control robotic surgery?
- 1.4k Downloads
As surgical robots begin to occupy a larger place in operating rooms around the world, continued innovation is necessary to improve our outcomes.
A comprehensive review of current surgical robotic user interfaces was performed to describe the modern surgical platforms, identify the benefits, and address the issues of feedback and limitations of visualization.
Most robots currently used in surgery employ a master/slave relationship, with the surgeon seated at a work-console, manipulating the master system and visualizing the operation on a video screen. Although enormous strides have been made to advance current technology to the point of clinical use, limitations still exist. A lack of haptic feedback to the surgeon and the inability of the surgeon to be stationed at the operating table are the most notable examples. The future of robotic surgery sees a marked increase in the visualization technologies used in the operating room, as well as in the robots’ abilities to convey haptic feedback to the surgeon. This will allow unparalleled sensation for the surgeon and almost eliminate inadvertent tissue contact and injury.
A novel design for a user interface will allow the surgeon to have access to the patient bedside, remaining sterile throughout the procedure, employ a head-mounted three-dimensional visualization system, and allow the most intuitive master manipulation of the slave robot to date.
KeywordsSurgical robot Minimally invasive surgery Surgical user interface
Dmitry Oleynikov is a stockholder of Virtual Incision Corporation. R. Stephen Otte, Anton Simorov, and Courtni Kopietz have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 8.Phee SJ, Ho KY, Lomanto D, Low SC, Huynh VA, Kencana AP, Yang K, Sun ZL, Chung SC (2010) Natural orifice transgastric endoscopic wedge hepatic resection in an experimental model using an intuitively controlled master and slave transluminal endoscopic robot (MASTER). Surg Endosc 24(9):2293–2298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Hagn U, Konietschke R, Tobergte A, Nickl M, Jörg S, Kübler B, Passig G, Gröger M, Fröhlich F, Seibold U, Le-Tien L, Albu-Schäffer A, Nothhelfer A, Hacker F, Grebenstein M, Hirzinger G (2010) DLR MiroSurge: a versatile system for research in endoscopic telesurgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 5(2):183–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Konietschke R, Hagn U, Nickl M, Jörg S, Tobergte A, Passig G, Seibold U, Le Tien L, Kuebler B, Gröger M, Fröhlich F, Rink C, Albu-Schäffer A, Grebenstein M, Ortmaier T, Hirzinger G (2009) The DLR MiroSurge: a robotic system for surgery. Video contribution presented at ICRAGoogle Scholar
- 17.Zhang X, Nelson C, Oleynikov D (2011) Natural haptic interface for single-port surgical robot with gravity compensation. Int J Med Robot 7(S1). Epub 4 Nov 2011Google Scholar
- 28.Pamplona VF, Fernandes LAF, Prauchner J, Nedel LP, Olivier MM (2008) The image-based data glove. Proceedings of X Symposium on Virtual Real (SVR 2008) 204–211Google Scholar
- 30.Faraz A, Payandeh S (2000) Engineering approaches to mechanical and robotic design for minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 1–11Google Scholar
- 34.Mavash M, Hayward V (2004) High fidelity haptic synthesis of contact with deformable bodies. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 24(2):28–55Google Scholar