Advertisement

Wire-driven flexible manipulator with constrained spherical joints for minimally invasive surgery

  • Daekeun Ji
  • Tae Hun Kang
  • Seongbo Shim
  • Seongpung Lee
  • Jaesung HongEmail author
Original Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

One of the main factors that affect the rigidity of flexible robots is the twist deformation because of the external force exerted on the end effector. Another important factor that affects accuracy is the fact that such robots do not have a constant curvature. The conventional kinematic model assumes that the curvature is constant; however, in reality, it is not. To improve the rigidity and accuracy of flexible robots used in minimally invasive surgery via preventing the twist deformation while ensuring a constant curvature, we propose a novel flexible manipulator with ball-constrained spherical (BCS) joints and a spring.

Methods

The BCS joints are used to prevent the twist deformation in the flexible robot. The joints have two degrees of freedom (DOFs), which limit the rotation about the axial direction. The rotation is limited because the ball that is inserted into a BCS joint can move only along the ball guide. To obtain a constant curvature, springs are installed among the BCS joints. The springs receive the uniform compression force generated among the joints, thus achieving a constant curvature. The proposed BCS joint is designed based on the diameter of the forceps, desired workspace, and desired bending angle.

Results

To evaluate the proposed mechanism, three experiments were performed using a 20-mm-diameter prototype consisting of 13 BCS joints with a two-DOF motion. The experimental results showed that the prototype can realize a constant curvature with a mean error of 0.21°, which can support up to 5 N with no apparent twist deformation.

Conclusions

We developed a flexible manipulator with BCS joints for minimally invasive surgery. The proposed mechanism is anticipated to help prevent the twist deformation of the robot and realize a constant curvature. Accordingly, it is expected that rigidity is improved to ensure accuracy.

Keywords

Flexible manipulator Minimally invasive surgery Ball-constrained spherical joint 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the Ministry of Trade Industry and Energy (MOTIE, Korea), the Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT, Korea), and the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW, Korea) under the Technology Development Program for AI-Bio-Robot-Medicine Convergence (20001688).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies performed by any of the authors on human participants or animals.

Informed consent

This article does not contain patient data.

References

  1. 1.
    Bodner J, Wykypiel H, Wetscher G, Schmid T (2004) First experiences with the da Vinci™ operating robot in thoracic surgery. Eur J Cardio-thoracic Surg 25(5):844–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Piccigallo M, Scarfogliero U, Quaglia C, Petroni G, Valdastri P, Menciassi A, Dario P (2010) Design of a novel bimanual robotic system for single-port laparoscopy. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 15(6):871–878Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee H, Choi Y, Yi BJ (2012) Stackable 4-bar manipulators for single port access surgery. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 17(1):157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheon B, Gezgin E, Ji DK, Tomikawa M, Hashizume M, Kim HJ, Hong J (2014) A single port laparoscopic surgery robot with high force transmission and a large workspace. Surg Endosc 28(9):2719–2729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Asari VK, Kumar S, Kassim IM (2000) A fully autonomous microrobotic endoscopy system. J Intell Robot Syst 28(4):325–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bailly Y, Amirat Y, Fried G (2011) Modeling and control of a continuum style microrobot for endovascular surgery. IEEE Trans Robot 27(5):1024–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simaan N (2005) Snake-like units using flexible backbones and actuation redundancy for enhanced miniaturization. In: Proceedings of 2005 IEEE international conference robotics and automation, Barcelona, pp 3012–3017Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen G, Fu L, Pham MT, Redarce T (2013) Characterization and modeling of a pneumatic actuator for a soft continuum robot. In: IEEE international conference mechatronics automation, Takamatsu, pp 243–248Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yoshimitsu K, Kato T, Song SE, Hata N (2014) A novel four-wire-driven robotic catheter for radio-frequency ablation treatment. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 9(5):867–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Amanov E, Nguyen TD, Burgner-Kahrs J (2015) Additive manufacturing of patient-specific tubular continuum manipulators. In: Webster RJ, Yaniv ZR (eds) Medical imaging 2015: image-guided procedures, robotic interventions, and modeling, vol 9415, Florida, pp 94151P.  https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2081999
  11. 11.
    Ding J, Goldman RE, Xu K, Allen PK, Fowler DL, Simaan N (2013) Design and coordination kinematics of an insertable robotic effectors platform for single port access surgery. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 18(5):1612–1624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xu K, Zhao J, Fu M (2015) Development of the SJTU unfoldable robotic system (SURS) for single port laparoscopy. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 20(5):2133–2145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kato T, Okumura I, Kose H, Takagi K, Hata N (2016) Tendon-driven continuum robot for neuroendoscopy: validation of extended kinematic mapping for hysteresis operation. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 11(4):589–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dupont PE, Lock J, Itkowitz B, Butler E (2010) Design and control of concentric-tube robots. IEEE Trans Robot 26(2):209–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burgner-Kahrs J, Rucker DC, Choset H (2015) Continuum robots for medical applications: a survey. IEEE Trans Robot 31(6):1261–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim YJ, Cheng SS, Desai JP (2018) Active stiffness tuning of a spring-based continuum robot for MRI-guided neurosurgery. IEEE Trans Robot 34(1):18–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang J, Wang S, Li J, Ren X, Briggs RM (2018) Development of a novel robotic platform with controllable stiffness manipulation arms for laparoscopic single-site surgery (LESS). Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 14(1):e1838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xu K, Fu M, Zhao J (2014) An experimental kinestatic comparison between continuum manipulators with structural variations. In: IEEE international conference robotics automation, China, pp 3258–3264Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dong X, Raffles M, Cobos-Guzman S, Axinte D, Kell J (2016) A novel continuum robot using twin-pivot compliant joints: design, modeling, and validation. J Mech Robot 8(2):021010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shim SB, Kang TH, Ji DK, Choi HS, Joung SH, Hong JS (2016) An all-joint control master device for single port laparoscopic surgery robots. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 11(8):1547–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hannan MW, Walker ID (2001) Analysis and experiments with an elephant’s trunk robot. Adv Robot 15(8):847–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shi C, Luo X, Qi X, Li T, Song S, Najdovski Z, Fukuda T (2017) Shape sensing techniques for continuum robots in minimally invasive surgery: a survey. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 64(8):1665–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rone WS, Ben-Tzvi P (2014) Mechanics modeling of multisegment rod-driven continuum robots. J Mech Robot 6(4):041006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Webster RJ III, Romano JM, Cowan NJ (2009) Mechanics of precurved-tube continuum robots. IEEE Trans Robot 25(1):67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rucker DC, Webster RJ III (2011) Statics and dynamics of continuum robots with general tendon routing and external loading. IEEE Trans Robot 27(6):1033–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rone WS, Ben-Tzvi P (2014) Continuum robot dynamics utilizing the principle of virtual power. IEEE Trans Robot 30(1):275–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jones BA, Walker ID (2006) Kinematics for multisection continuum robots. IEEE Trans Robot 22(1):43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li Z, Du R, Yu H, Ren H (2014) Statics modeling of an underactuated wire-driven flexible robotic arm. In: IEEE international conference biomedical robotics biomechatronics, Brazil, pp 326–331Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Suh JW, Kim KY, Jeong JW, Lee JJ (2015) Design considerations for a hyper-redundant pulleyless rolling joint with elastic fixtures. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 20(6):2841–2852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nguyen TD, Burgner-Kahrs J (2015) A tendon-driven continuum robot with extensible sections. In: IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Hamburg, pp 2130–2135Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Autorino R, Stein RJ, Lima E, Damiano R, Khanna R, Haber GP, White MA, Kaouk JH (2010) Current status and future perspectives in laparoendoscopic single-site and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic urological surgery. Int J Urol 17(5):410–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Blanc L, Delchambre A, Lambert P (2017) Flexible medical devices: review of controllable stiffness solutions. Actuators 6(3):23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Morimoto TK, Hawkes EW, Okamura AM (2017) Design of a compact actuation and control system for flexible medical robots. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 2(3):1579–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Patel N, Seneci CA, Shang J, Leibrandt K, Yang GZ, Darzi A, Teare J (2015) Evaluation of a novel flexible snake robot for endoluminal surgery. Surg Endosc 29(11):3349–3355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang X, Meng MQH (2012) Robotics for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery: a review. J Robot.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/512616 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Patel N, Seneci C, Yang GZ, Darzi A, Teare J (2014) Flexible platforms for natural orifice transluminal and endoluminal surgery. Endosc Int Open 2(02):117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sarli N, Simaan N (2017) Minimal visual occlusion redundancy resolution of continuum robots in confined spaces. In: IEEE international conference on intelligent robots and systems, Vancouver, pp 24–28Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Evangeliou N, Tzes A (2016) Development of an SMA actuated redundant robotic platform for minimally invasive surgery. In: IEEE international conference biomedical robotics and biomechatronics, Utown, pp 26–29Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Georgilas IP, Tourassis VD (2009) A novel biologically inspired flexible robotic mechanism for industrial applications. In: IEEE/ASME international conference, Singapore, pp 1504–1509Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Seow CM, Chin WJ, Nelson CA, Nakamura A, Farritor SM, Oleynikov D (2013) Articulated manipulator with multiple instruments for natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery. J Med Devices 7(4):041004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Keller S, Gordon A (2011) Equivalent stress and strain distribution in helical compression springs subjected to bending. J Strain Anal Eng Des 46(6):405–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Webster RJ III, Jones BA (2010) Design and kinematic modeling of constant curvature continuum robot: a review. Int J Robot Res 29(13):1661–1683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Malekzadeh P, Karami G (2003) Out-of-plane static analysis of circular arches by DQM. Int J Solid Struct 40(23):6527–6545CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daekeun Ji
    • 1
  • Tae Hun Kang
    • 2
  • Seongbo Shim
    • 1
  • Seongpung Lee
    • 1
  • Jaesung Hong
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Robotics Engineering DepartmentDGISTDaeguRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Convergence Research Center for Collaborative RobotsDGISTDaeguRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations