Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing

, Volume 54, Issue 8, pp 1229–1241 | Cite as

Hand–tool–tissue interaction forces in neurosurgery for haptic rendering

  • Marco Aggravi
  • Elena De Momi
  • Francesco DiMeco
  • Francesco Cardinale
  • Giuseppe Casaceli
  • Marco Riva
  • Giancarlo Ferrigno
  • Domenico Prattichizzo
Original Article

Abstract

Haptics provides sensory stimuli that represent the interaction with a virtual or tele-manipulated object, and it is considered a valuable navigation and manipulation tool during tele-operated surgical procedures. Haptic feedback can be provided to the user via cutaneous information and kinesthetic feedback. Sensory subtraction removes the kinesthetic component of the haptic feedback, having only the cutaneous component provided to the user. Such a technique guarantees a stable haptic feedback loop, while it keeps the transparency of the tele-operation system high, which means that the system faithfully replicates and render back the user’s directives. This work focuses on checking whether the interaction forces during a bench model neurosurgery operation can lie in the solely cutaneous perception of the human finger pads. If this assumption is found true, it would be possible to exploit sensory subtraction techniques for providing surgeons with feedback from neurosurgery. We measured the forces exerted to surgical tools by three neurosurgeons performing typical actions on a brain phantom, using contact force sensors, while the forces exerted by the tools to the phantom tissue were recorded using a load cell placed under the brain phantom box. The measured surgeon–tool contact forces were 0.01–3.49 N for the thumb and 0.01–6.6 N for index and middle finger, whereas the measured tool–tissue interaction forces were from six to 11 times smaller than the contact forces, i.e., 0.01–0.59 N. The measurements for the contact forces fit the range of the cutaneous sensitivity for the human finger pad; thus, we can say that, in a tele-operated robotic neurosurgery scenario, it would possible to render forces at the fingertip level by conveying haptic cues solely through the cutaneous channel of the surgeon’s finger pads. This approach would allow high transparency and high stability of the haptic feedback loop in a tele-operation system.

Keywords

Haptic rendering Contact forces Brain phantom forces Neurosurgery 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the contribution of Danilo De Lorenzo for his assistance with the acquisition setup. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007–2013 under Grant Agreement No. 270460 of the project “ACTIVE: Active Constraints Technologies for Ill defined or Volatile Environment” and under Grant agreement No. 601165 of the project “WEARHAP—WEARable HAPtics for humans and robots.”

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Salisbury K, Conti F, Barbagli F (2004) Haptic rendering: introductory concepts. IEEE Comput Graphics Appl 24(2):24–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Salcudean S, Ku S, Bell G (1997) Performance measurement in scaled teleoperation for microsurgery, in CVRMed-MRCAS’97. Springer, pp. 789–798Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Lorenzo D, De Momi E, Conti L, Votta E, Riva M, Fava E, Bello L, Ferrigno G (2013) Intraoperative forces and moments analysis on patient head clamp during awake brain surgery. Med Biol Eng Comput 51(3):331–341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Lorenzo D, De Momi E, Dyagilev I, Manganelli R, Formaglio A, Prattichizzo D, Shoham M, Ferrigno G (2011) Force feedback in a piezoelectric linear actuator for neurosurgery. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 7(3):268–275Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Lorenzo D, Koseki Y, De Momi E, Chinzei K, Okamura A (2013) Coaxial needle insertion assistant with enhanced force feedback. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 60(2):379–389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Massimino M, Sheridan T (1994) Teleoperator performance with varying force and visual feedback. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 36(1):145–157Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moody L, Baber C, Arvanitis TN et al (2002) Objective surgical performance evaluation based on haptic feedback. Stud Health Technol Inf 85(2):304–310Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wagner C, Stylopoulos N, Howe R (2002) The role of force feedback in surgery: analysis of blunt dissection. In: Symposium on haptic interfaces for virtual environment and teleoperator systems, Citeseer, pp 73–79Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lang M, Sutherland G (2010) Informatic surgery: the union of surgeon and machine. World Neurosurg 74(1):118–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guidali M, Duschau-Wicke A, Broggi S, Klamroth-Marganska V, Nef T, Riener R (2011) A robotic system to train activities of daily living in a virtual environment. Med Biol Eng Comput 49(10):1213–1223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ellis R, Ismaeil O, Lipsett M (1996) Design and evaluation of a high-performance haptic interface. Robotica 14(03):321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Okamura AM (2004) Methods for haptic feedback in teleoperated robot-assisted surgery. Ind Robot Int J 31(6):499–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lederman S (1991) Skin and touch. Encycl Hum Biol 7:51–63Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sherrick C, Craig J (1982) The psychophysics of touch: a sourcebook. Tactual perception, p 55Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goethals P (2008) Tactile feedback for robot assisted minimally invasive surgery: an overview. In: Internal Report, Department of Mechanical Engineering KU LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sherrick C, Cholewiak RW (1986) Cutaneous sensitivity. Handb Percept Hum Perform 1:1–12Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hale K, Stanney K (2004) Deriving haptic design guidelines from human physiological, psychophysical, and neurological foundations. IEEE Comput Graphics Appl 24(2):33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jones L (2000) Kinesthetic sensing. In: Human and machine haptics. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hashtrudi-Zaad K, Salcudean S (2002) Transparency in time-delayed systems and the effect of local force feedback for transparent teleoperation. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 18(1):108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Franken M, Stramigioli S, Misra S, Secchi C, Macchelli A (2011) Bilateral telemanipulation with time delays: a two-layer approach combining passivity and transparency. IEEE Trans Robot 27(4):741–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bach-y Rim P, Webster J, Tompkins W, Crabb T (1987) Sensory substitution for space gloves and for space robots. In: Proceedings IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, vol 2. ICRA, pp 51–57Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Massimino M (1995) Improved force perception through sensory substitution. Control Eng Pract 3(2):215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prattichizzo D, Pacchierotti C, Rosati G (2012) Cutaneous force feedback as a sensory subtraction technique in haptics. IEEE Trans Haptics 5(4):289–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pacchierotti C, Tirmizi A, Prattichizzo D (2013) Improving transparency in eleoperation by means of cutaneous tactile force feedback. ACM Trans Appl Percept 11:4Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mihelj M, Podobnik J (2012) Haptic displays. In: Haptics for virtual reality and teleoperation, Series Intelligent Systems, Control and Automation: Science and Engineering, vol 64. Springer, Netherlands, pp 57–73Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miller K, Chinzei K, Orssengo G, Bednarz P (2000) Mechanical properties of brain tissue in-vivo: experiment and computer simulation. J Biomech 33(11):1369–1376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sutherland G, Wolfsberger S, Lama S, Zarei-nia K (2013) The evolution of neuroArm. Neurosurgery 72:A27–A32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chen Z, Gillies G, Broaddus W, Prabhu S, Fillmore H, Mitchell R, Corwin F, Fatouros P (2004) A realistic brain tissue phantom for intraparenchymal infusion studies. J Neurosurg 101(2):314–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marcus H, Zareinia K, Gan L, Yang F, Lama S, Yang G-Z, Sutherland G (2014) Forces exerted during microneurosurgery: a cadaver study. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 10(2):251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maddahi Y, Gan LS, Zareinia K, Lama S, Sepehri N, Sutherland G (2015) Quantifying workspace and forces of surgical dissection during robot-assisted neurosurgery. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist SurgGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Howard M III, Abkes B, Ollendieck M, Noh M, Ritter R, Gillies G (1999) Measurement of the force required to move a neurosurgical probe through in vivo human brain tissue. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 46(7):891–894CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sharp A, Ortega A, Restrepo D, Curran-Everett D, Gall K (2009) In vivo penetration mechanics and mechanical properties of mouse brain tissue at micrometer scales. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 56(1):45–53CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jensen W, Yoshida K, Hofmann U (2006) In-vivo implant mechanics of flexible, silicon-based acreo microelectrode arrays in rat cerebral cortex. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 53(5):934–940CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rosen J, Hannaford B, Richards CG, Sinanan MN (2001) Markov modeling of minimally invasive surgery based on tool/tissue interaction and force/torque signatures for evaluating surgical skills. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 48(5):579–591CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Parittotokkaporn T, Frasson L, Schneider A, Huq S, Davies BL, Degenaar P, Biesenack J, Rodriguez y Baena F (2009) Soft tissue traversal with zero net force: feasibility study of a biologically inspired design based on reciprocal motion. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and biomimetics, ROBIO. IEEE, pp 80–85Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ritter RC, Quate E, Gillies G, Grady M, Howard IMA, Broaddus W (1998) Measurement of friction on straight catheters in in vitro brain and phantom material. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 45(4):476–485CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    De Lorenzo D, Manganelli R, Dyagilev I, Formaglio A, De Momi E, Prattichizzo D, Shoham M, Ferrigno G (2010) Miniaturized rigid probe driver with haptic loop control for neurosurgical interventions. In: Proceedings IEEE-RAS EMBS international conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics, BioRob. IEEE, pp 522–527Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    LabVIEW System Design Software, National Instruments Corporation. http://www.ni.com/labview/
  39. 39.
    The OROCOS Project. http://www.orocos.org/
  40. 40.
    Gefen A, Margulies S (2004) Are in vivo and in situ brain tissues mechanically similar? J Biomech 37(9):1339–1352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Prattichizzo D, Trinkle JC (2008) Grasping. In: Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, pp 671–700Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Aggravi
    • 1
  • Elena De Momi
    • 2
  • Francesco DiMeco
    • 3
  • Francesco Cardinale
    • 4
  • Giuseppe Casaceli
    • 4
  • Marco Riva
    • 5
  • Giancarlo Ferrigno
    • 2
  • Domenico Prattichizzo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Engineering and MathematicsUniversity of SienaSienaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Electronics, Information and BioengineeringPolitecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  3. 3.National Neurological Institute “C. Besta”MilanItaly
  4. 4.“Claudio Munari” Epilepsy and Parkinson Surgery CentreNiguarda Ca Granda HospitalMilanItaly
  5. 5.Unità of Oncological Neurosurgery Humanitas Research HospitalUniversità degli Studi di MilanoRozzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations