Study on real-time force feedback for a master–slave interventional surgical robotic system

  • Shuxiang Guo
  • Yuan Wang
  • Nan XiaoEmail author
  • Youxiang Li
  • Yuhua Jiang


In robot-assisted catheterization, haptic feedback is important, but is currently lacking. In addition, conventional interventional surgical robotic systems typically employ a master–slave architecture with an open-loop force feedback, which results in inaccurate control. We develop herein a novel real-time master–slave (RTMS) interventional surgical robotic system with a closed-loop force feedback that allows a surgeon to sense the true force during remote operation, provide adequate haptic feedback, and improve control accuracy in robot-assisted catheterization. As part of this system, we also design a unique master control handle that measures the true force felt by a surgeon, providing the basis for the closed-loop control of the entire system. We use theoretical and empirical methods to demonstrate that the proposed RTMS system provides a surgeon (using the master control handle) with a more accurate and realistic force sensation, which subsequently improves the precision of the master–slave manipulation. The experimental results show a substantial increase in the control accuracy of the force feedback and an increase in operational efficiency during surgery.


Master–slave robot Catheterization Haptic feedback Kalman filtering Proportional–integral–derivative (PID) control 



This research is partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61375094), National High Tech. Research and Development Program of China (No.2015AA043202).


  1. K. Ahmed, A.N. Keeling, M. Fakhry, H. Ashrafian, R. Aggarwal, P.A. Naughton, A. Darzi, N. Cheshire, T. Athanasiou, M. Hamad, Role of virtual reality simulation in teaching and assessing technical skills in endovascular intervention. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 21(1), 55–66 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. G.A. Antoniou, C.V. Riga, E.K. Mayer, N.J. Cheshire, C.D. Bicknell, Clinical applications of robotic technology in vascular and endovascular surgery. J. Vasc. Surg. 53(2), 493–499 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. T. Carrell, N. Dastur, R. Salter, P. Taylor, Use of a remotely steerable “robotic” catheter in a branched endovascular aortic graft. J. Vasc. Surg. 55(1), 223–225 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. J. Guo, S. Guo, N. Xiao, X. Ma, S. Yoshida, T. Tamiya, M. Kawanishi, A Novel Robotic Catheter System with Force and Visual Feedback for Vascular Interventional Surgery. Int. J. Mechatron. Autom. 2(1), 15–24 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. J. Guo, S. Guo, L. Shao, P. Wang, Q. Gao, Design and performance evaluation of a novel robotic catheter system for vascular interventional surgery. Int. J. Microsyst. Technol. 22(9), 2167–2176 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. S Guo, M Qin, N Xiao, Y Wang, W Peng, High precise haptic device for the robotic catheter navigation system. Proceedings of 2016 I.E. international conference on mechatronics and automation. 2524–2529(2016)Google Scholar
  7. P. Kanagaratnam, W.M. Koa, D.T. Wallace, et al., Experience of robotic catheter ablation in humans using a novel remotely steerable catheter sheath. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 21(1), 19–26 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. S. B. Kesner and R. D. Howe, Force control of flexible catheter robots for beating heart surgery. Proceedings of 2011 I.E. international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), 1589–1594(2011)Google Scholar
  9. E.M. Khan et al., First experience with a novel robotic remote catheter system: Amigo mapping trial. J. Interv. Card. Electrophysiol. 37(2), 121–129 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. F. Kiemeneij et al., Use of the Stereotaxis Niobe magnetic navigation system for percutaneous coronary intervention: Results from 350 consecutive patients. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 71(4), 510–516 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. J. Lock, G. Laing. Quasistasic modeling of concentric tube robots with external loads. The Proceedings of 2010 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. 2325–2332 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. X. Ma, S. Guo, N. Xiao, J. Guo, S. Yoshida, T. Tamiya, M. Kawanishi, Development of a novel robotic catheter manipulating system with fuzzy PID control. Int. J. Intell. Mechatron. Robot. (IJIMR). 2(2), 58–77 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. X. Ma, S. Guo, N. Xiao, S. Yoshida, T. Tamiya, Evaluating performance of a novel developed robotic catheter manipulating system. J. Micro-Bio Robot. 8(3–4), 133–143 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. W. Peng, N. Xiao, S. Guo, Y. Wang, A Novel Force Feedback Interventional Surgery Robotic System. Proceedings of 2015 I.E. International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation. 709–714(2015)Google Scholar
  15. C.V. Riga, C.D. Bicknell, M.S. Hamady, N.J. Cheshire, Evaluation of robotic endovascular catheters for arch vessel cannulation. J. Vasc. Surg. 54(3), 799–809 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. W. Saliba, V.Y. Reddy, O. Wazni, et al., Atrial fibrillation ablation using a robotic catheter remote control system: Initial human experience and long-term follow-up results. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 51(25), 2407–2411 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. I. Singh, Robotics in urological surgery: Review of current status and maneuverability, and comparison of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopy. Comput. Aided Surg. 16(1), 38–45 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Y. Song, S. Guo, X. Yin, et al., Design and performance evaluation of a haptic interface based on MR fluids for endovascular tele-surgery. Microsyst. Technol., 1–10 (2017).
  19. N.V. Tsekos, A. Khanicheh, E. Christoforou, C. Mavroidis, Magnetic resonance-compatible robotic and mechatronics systems for image-guided interventions and rehabilitation: A review study. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 9(1), 351–387 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Y. Wang, K. Hu, N. Xiao, S. Guo, A Force Acquisition Method in a catheter navigation system. Proceedings of 2013 I.E. international conference on complex medical Engineering, 633–637(2013a)Google Scholar
  21. Y. Wang, N. Xiao, S. Guo, Design of a Surgeon's Controller for Catheter Navigation. Proceedings of 2013 I.E. international conference on mechatronics and automation, 974–978(2013b)Google Scholar
  22. Y. Wang, S. Guo, B. Gao, Vascular Elastcity Determined Mass-spring Model for Virtual Reality Simulators. Int. J. Mechatron. Autom. 5(1), 1–10 (2015a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Y Wang, S Guo, P Guo, et al. Study on haptic feedback functions for an interventional surgical robot system. Proceedings of 2015 I.E. International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation. 715–720(2015b)Google Scholar
  24. N. Xiao, S. Guo, J. Guo, X. Xiao, and T. Tamiya, Development of a kind of robotic catheter manipulation system. Proceedings of 2011 I.E. international conference on robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO). 32–37(2011)Google Scholar
  25. N. Xiao, J. Guo, S. Guo, T. Tamiya, A. Robotic Catheter, System with real-time force feedback and monitor. Australas. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 35(3), 283–289 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. X. Yin, S. Guo, N. Xiao, T. Tamiya, H. Hirata, H. Ishihara, Safety operation consciousness realization of MR fluids-base novel haptic Interface for teleoperated catheter minimally invasive neuro surgery. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 21(2), 1–1 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. L. Zhang, S. Guo, H. Yu, et al., Performance evaluation of a strain-gauge force sensor for a haptic robot-assisted catheter operating system. Microsyst. Technol. 23(10), 1–10 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Life ScienceBeijing Institute of TechnologyBeijingChina
  2. 2.Faculty of EngineeringKagawa UniversityTakamatsuJapan
  3. 3.Beijing Neurosurgical Institute, Beijing Tiantan HospitalCapital Medical UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations