Force-detecting gripper and force feedback system for neurosurgery applications

  • Takeshi Yoneyama
  • Tetsuyou Watanabe
  • Hiroyuki Kagawa
  • Junichiro Hamada
  • Yutaka Hayashi
  • Mitsutoshi Nakada
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose For the application of less invasive robotic neurosurgery to the resection of deep-seated tumors, a prototype system of a force-detecting gripper with a flexible micromanipulator and force feedback to the operating unit will be developed.

Methods Gripping force applied on the gripper is detected by strain gauges attached to the gripper clip. The signal is transmitted to the amplifier by wires running through the inner tube of the manipulator. Proportional force is applied on the finger lever of the operating unit by the surgeon using a bilateral control program. A pulling force experienced by the gripper is also detected at the gripper clip. The signal for the pulling force is transmitted in a manner identical to that mentioned previously, and the proportional torque is applied on the touching roller of the finger lever of the operating unit. The surgeon can feel the gripping force as the resistance of the operating force of the finger and can feel the pulling force as the friction at the finger surface.

Results A basic operation test showed that both the gripping force and pulling force were clearly detected in the gripping of soft material and that the operator could feel the gripping force and pulling force at the finger lever of the operating unit.

Conclusions A prototype of the force feedback in the microgripping manipulator system has been developed. The system will be useful for removing deep-seated brain tumors in future master–slave-type robotic neurosurgery.

Keywords

Neurosurgery Robotic surgery Brain tumor Manipulator Force feedback 

References

  1. 1.
    Gutt CN, Onui T, Schemmer P, Schemmer MW (2004) Robot -assisted abdominal surgery. Br J Surg 91:1390–1397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jacobs S, Falk V (2001) Pearls and pitfalls: lesions learned in endoscopic robotic surgery-the da Vinci experience. Heart Surg Forum 4:307–310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thiel DD, Winfield HN (2008) Robotics in urology: past, present, and future. J Endourol 22:825–830PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haidegger T, Kovacs L, Fordos G, Bnyo Z, Kazanzides P (2008) Future trends in robotic neurosurgery. 14th Nordic-Baltic conference on biomedical engineering and, medical physics. pp 229–233Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hongo K, Kakizawa Y, Koyama J, Nishizawa K, Tajima F, Fujie MG, Kobayashi S (2001) Microscopic-manipulator system for minimally invasive neurosurgery. Computer assisted radiology and surgery, Amsterdam, excerpta medica, pp 265–269Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hongo K, Kobayashi S, Kakizawa Y, Koyama J, Goto T, Okudera H, Kan K, Fujie MG, Iseki H, Takakura K (2002) Neurobot: telecontrolled micromanipulator system for minimally invasive microneurosurgery. Neurosurgery 51:985–988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hongo K, Goto T, Kakizawa Y, Koyama J, Kawai T, Kan K, Tanaka Y, Kobayashi S (2003) Micromanipulator system (NeuRobot): clinical application in neurosurgery. Int Congr Ser 1256:509–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goto T, Hongo K, Kakizawa Y, Muraoka H, Miyairi Y, Tanaka Y, Kobayashi S (2003) Clinical application of robotic telemanipulation system in neurosurgery. J. Neurosurg 99:1082–1084PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hongo K, Goto T, Kakizawa Y, Koyama J (2011) Microsurgery-assisting robotics (NeuRobot): current status and future perspective. Jpn J Neurosurg 20(4):270–274 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kan K, Fujie MG, Tajima F, Nishizawa K, Kawai T, Shose A, Takakura K, Kobayashi S, Dohi T (2001) Development of HUMAN system with the three micro manipulator for minimally invasive neurosurgery. Computer assisted radiology and surgery, Amsterdam, excerpta medica. pp 144–149Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nishizawa K, Fujie MG, Hongo K, Dohi T, Iseki H (2006) Development of surgical manipulator system “HUMAN” for clinical neurosurgery. JMAJ 49(11–12):335–344Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morita A, Sora S, Mitsuishi M, Warisawa S, Suruman K, Asai D, Arata J, Baba S, Takahashi H, Mochizuki R, Kirino T (2005) Microsurgical robotic system for the deep surgical field: development of a prototype and feasibility studies in animal and cadaveric models. J Neurosurg 103:320–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Okayasu H, Okamoto J, Iseki M, Fujie MG (2005) Development of a hydraulically-driven flexible manipulator for neurosurgery. J Robotics Mechatron 17(2):149–157Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arata J, Fischer GS, Papademetris X et al (2009) Open GTLink: an open network protocol for image-guided therapy environment. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg (2009) doi:10.1002/rcs.274
  15. 15.
    Arata J, Tada Y, Kozuka H, Wada T, Saito Y, Ikedo N, Hayashi Y, Fujii M, Kajita Y, Mizuno M, Wakabayashi T, Fujimoto H (2011) Neurosurgical robotic system for brain tumor removal. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 6:375–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tavakoli M, Patel RV, Moallem M (2004) Design issues in a haptics-based master-slave system for minimally invasive surgery. 2004 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation pp 371–376Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Takahashi H, Warisawa M, Mitsuishi M, Arata J, Hashizume M (2006) Development of high dexterity minimally invasive surgical system with augmented force feedback capability. The first IEEE/RAS-EMBS international conference on biomedical robotics and biomechatronics. pp 284–289Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thielmann S, Seibold U, Hslinger R, Passig G, Bahls T, Joerg S, Nickl M, Nothhelfer A, Hagn U, Hirzinger G (2010) MICA-A new generation of versatile instruments in robotic surgery. The 2010 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 871–878Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tholey G, Desai JP (2007) A modular, automated laparoscopic grasper with three-dimensional force measurement capability. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation pp 250–255Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hashiguchi D, Tadano K, Kawashima K (2011) A prototype of pneumatically-driven forceps manipulator with force sensing capability using a simple flexible joint. 2011 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems. pp 931–936Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yoneyama T, Watanabe T, Kagawa H, Hamada J, Hayashi Y, Nakada M (2011) Force detecting gripper and flexible micro manipulator for neurosurgery. 33rd annual international conference of the IEEE EMBS pp 6695–6699Google Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    Ohara N, Nakazawa K, Morikawa Y, Kitajima M (2010) Bilateral control considering interference with environment for microsurgery. Trans Jpn Soc Mech Eng Ser C 76(766):78–83Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Soza G, Grosso R, Mimsky C, Hastreiter P, Fahlbusch R, Greiner G (2005) Determination of the elasticity parameters of brain tissue with combined simulation and registration. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 1(3):87–95Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Colgate JE (1993) Robust impedance shaping telemanipulation. IEEE Trans Robotics Autom 9(4):374–384 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Provancher WR, Sylvester ND (2009) Fingerpad skin stretch increases the perception of virtual friction. IEEE Trans Haptics 2(4):212–223Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Konyo M, Yamada H, Okamoto S, Tadokoro S (2008) Alternative display of friction represented by tactile stimulation without tangential force, haptics: perception, devices and scenarios. Lect Notes Comput Sci 5024:619–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takeshi Yoneyama
    • 1
  • Tetsuyou Watanabe
    • 1
  • Hiroyuki Kagawa
    • 1
  • Junichiro Hamada
    • 2
  • Yutaka Hayashi
    • 2
  • Mitsutoshi Nakada
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Mechanical EngineeringKanazawa UniversityKakuma-machi, KanazawaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Neurosurgery Graduate School of Medical ScienceKanazawa UniversityTakara-machi, KanazawaJapan

Personalised recommendations