Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In situ measurement and modeling of biomechanical response of human cadaveric soft tissues for physics-based surgical simulation

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Development of a laparoscopic surgery simulator that delivers high-fidelity visual and haptic (force) feedback, based on the physical models of soft tissues, requires the use of empirical data on the mechanical behavior of intra-abdominal organs under the action of external forces. As experiments on live human patients present significant risks, the use of cadavers presents an alternative. We present techniques of measuring and modeling the mechanical response of human cadaveric tissue for the purpose of developing a realistic model. The major contribution of this paper is the development of physics-based models of soft tissues that range from linear elastic models to nonlinear viscoelastic models which are efficient for application within the framework of a real-time surgery simulator.

Methods

To investigate the in situ mechanical, static, and dynamic properties of intra-abdominal organs, we have developed a high-precision instrument by retrofitting a robotic device from Sensable Technologies (position resolution of 0.03 mm) with a six-axis Nano 17 force-torque sensor from ATI Industrial Automation (force resolution of 1/1,280 N along each axis), and used it to apply precise displacement stimuli and record the force response of liver and stomach of ten fresh human cadavers.

Results

The mean elastic modulus of liver and stomach is estimated as 5.9359 kPa and 1.9119 kPa, respectively over the range of indentation depths tested. We have also obtained the parameters of a quasilinear viscoelastic (QLV) model to represent the nonlinear viscoelastic behavior of the cadaver stomach and liver over a range of indentation depths and speeds. The models are found to have an excellent goodness of fit (with R 2 > 0.99).

Conclusions

The data and models presented in this paper together with additional ones based on the principles presented in this paper would result in realistic physics-based surgical simulators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mack MJ (2001) Minimally invasive and robotic surgery. JAMA 385(5):568–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Basdogan C, Ho C, Srinivasan MA (2001) Virtual environments for medical training: graphical and haptic simulation of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatronics 6(3):269–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Satava RM, Jones SB (1997) Virtual environments for medical training and education. Presence 6(2):139–146

    Google Scholar 

  4. Tendick F, Downes M, Goktekin T, Cavusoglu MC, Feygin D, Wu X, Eyal R, Hegarty M, Way LW (2000) A virtual environment testbed for training laparoscopc surgical skill. Presence 9(3):236–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Srinivasan MA, Basdogan C (1997) Haptics in virtual environments: taxonomy, research status, and challenges. Comput Graph 21(4):393–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA, OrsquoBrien MK, Bansal VK, Andersen DK, Satava RM (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236:458–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bholat OS, Haluck RS, Murray WB, Gorman PJ, Krummel TM (1999) Tactile feedback is present during minimally invasive surgery. J Am Coll Surg 189:349–355

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Picod G, Jambon AC, Vinatier D, Dubois P (2005) What can the operator actually feel when performing a laparoscopy? Surg Endosc 19(1):95–100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lamata P, Gómez E, Sánchez-Margallo F, Lamata F, Pozo F, Usón J (2006) Tissue consistency perception in laparoscopy to define the level of fidelity in virtual reality simulation. Surg Endosc 20(9):1368–1375

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cao CGL, Zhou M, Jones DB, Schwaitzberg SD (2007) Can surgeons think and operate with haptics at the same time? J Gastrointest Surg 11:1564–1569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fung YC (1993) Biomechanics: mechanical properties of living tissues, 2nd edn. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany

  12. Yamada H (1970) Strength of biological materials. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  13. Schwartz J-M, Denninger M, Rancourt D, Moisan C, Laurendeau D (2005) Modeling liver tissue properties using a non-linear visco-elastic model for surgery simulation. Med Image Anal 9(2):103–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Roan E, Vemaganti K (2007) The nonlinear material properties of liver tissue determined from no-slip uniaxial compression experiments. J Biomech Eng 129(3):450–456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim SM, McCulloch TM, Rim K (1999) Comparison of viscoelastic properties of the pharyngeal tissue: human and canine. Dysphagia 14:8–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gerad JM, Ohayon J, Luboz V, Perrier P, Payan Y (2005) Non-linear elastic properties of the lingual and facial tissues assessed by indentation technique Application to the biomechanics of speech production. Med Eng Phys 27:884–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Samur E, Sedef M, Basdogan C, Avtan L, Duzgun O (2007) A robotic indenter for minimally invasive measurement and characterization of soft tissue behavior. Med Image Anal 11(4):361–373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mazza E, Nava A, Bauer M, Winter R, Bajka M, Holzapfel A (2006) Mechanical properties of the human uterine cervix: an in vivo study. Med Image Anal 10(2):125–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tay BK, Kim J, Srinivasan MA (2006) In vivo mechanical behavior of intra-abdominal organs. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 53(11):2129–2138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim J, Srinivasan MA (2005) Characterization of viscoelastic soft tissue properties from in vivo animal experiments and inverse FE parameter estimation. MICCAI 3750:599–606

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ottensmeyer MP (2002) In vivo measurement of solid organ viscoelastic properties. Medicine Meets Virtual Reality. Studies Health Technol Inform 85:328–333

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tay B, De S, Srinivasan MA (2002) In vivo force response of intra-abdominal soft tissues for the simulation of laparoscopic procedures, Medicine Meets Virtual Reality: 10, Newport Beach, January

  23. Ehman RL, Muthupillai R, Lomas DJ, Rossman PJ, Greenleaf JF, Manduca A, Riederer SJ (1995) Magnetoelastography MRI of acoustic strain waves. Radiology 179:335

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gao L, Parker KJ, Lerner RM, Levinson SF (1996) Imaging of the elastic properties of tissue – a review. Ultrasound Med Biol 22(8):959–977

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Loomis JM, Lederman SJ (1986) Tactual perception. In: Boff K, Kaufman L, Thomas J (eds) Handbook of perception and human performance. Wiley, New York, pp 31–41

    Google Scholar 

  26. Miller K, Chinzei K, Orssengo G, Bednarz P (2000) Mechanical properties of brain tissue in-vivo: experiment and computer simulation. J Biomech 33:1369–1376

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Zheng YP, Mak A (1996) An ultrasound indentation system for bio-mechanical properties assessment of soft tissues in vivo. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 43(9):912–918

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Zheng YP, Mak A (1999) Effective elastic properties for lower limb soft tissues from manual indentation experiment. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng 7:257–267

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Scilingo EP, DeRossi D, Bicchi A, Iacconi P (1997) Haptic display for replication of rheological behavior of surgical tissues: modelling, control, and experiments. Proc ASME Dyn Syst Control Div 173–176

  30. Brown JD, Rosen J, Moreyra M, Sinanan M, Hannaford B (2002) Computer-controlled motorized endoscopic grasper for in vivo measurements of soft tissue biomechanical characteristics. Medicine Meets Virtual Reality 85:71–73

    Google Scholar 

  31. Aoki T, Ohashi T, Matsumoto T, Sato M (1997) The pipette aspiration applied to the local stiffness measurement of soft tissues. Ann Biomed Eng 25:581–587

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kauer M, Vuskovic V et al (2002) Inverse finite element characterization of soft tissues. Med Image Anal 6(3):275–287

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Hannaford B, Trujillo J, Sinanan M, Moreya M, Rosen J, Brown J, Leuschke R, MacFarlane M (1998) Computerized Endoscopic Surgical Grasper. Proceedings of MMVR Conference 1998 265–271

  34. Torres-Moreno R (1991) Biomechanical analysis of the interaction between the above-knee residual limb and the prosthetic socket. PhD dissertation. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

  35. Huwart L, Peeters F, Sinkus R, Annet L, Salameh N, ter Beek LC, Horsmans Y (2006) Liver fibrosis: non-invasive assessment with MR elastography. NMR Biomed 19(2):173–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. De S, Lim Y-J, Muniyandi M, Srinivasan MA (2006) Physically realistic virtual surgery using the point-associated finite field (PAFF) approach. Presence 15(3):294–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lim Y-J, De S (2007) Real time simulation of nonlinear tissue response in virtual surgery using the point collocation-based method of finite spheres. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 196(31–32):3011–3024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Banihani S, De S. A comparison of some model order reduction methods for fast simulation of soft tissue response using the point collocation-based method of finite spheres (PCMFS) Engineering with Computers (in press)

  39. Hayes WC, Keer LM, Herrmann G, Mockros LF (1972) A mathematical analysis for indentation tests of articular cartilage. J Biomech 5:541–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Johnson GA, Liversay GA, Woo SL, Rajagopal KR (1996) A single integral finite strain viscoelastic model of ligaments and tendons. J Biomech Eng 118:221–226

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Carew EO, Talman EA, Boughner DR, Vesely I (1999) Quasi-linear viscoelastic theory applied to internal shearing of porcine aortic valve leaflets. J Biomech Eng 121:386–392

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Shames IH, Cozzarelli FA (1997) Elastic and inelastic stress analysis. Taylor and Francis, Bristol, PA, USA

  43. Press WH, Flannery BP, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT (1992) Numerical recipes in C: the art of scientific computing, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rivlin RS (1948) Large elastic deformations of isotropic materials—further developments of the general theory. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A Math Phys Sci 241:379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ogden RW (1972) Large deformation isotropic elasticity – correlation of theory and experiment for incompressible rubberlike solids. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A Math Phys Sci 326:565

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Yeoh OH (1993) Some forms of the strain-energy function for rubber. Rubber Chem Technol 66:754

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Viidik A, Vuust J (1978) Biology of collagen: proceedings of a symposium. Academic, Aarhus, London

    Google Scholar 

  48. Egorov IE, Schastlivtsev IV, Prut EV, Baranov AO, Turusov RO (2002) Mechanical properties of the human gastrointestinal tract. J Biomech 35:1417–1425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Support for this research was provided by grant R21 EB003547-01 from the NIH. Special thanks are due to Mr. C. Kennedy and Dr. J. Vlazny of US Surgical, Dr. A. Patel of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Dr. L. Martino and Dr. D. Conti of Albany Medical Center. Thanks are also due to the Anatomical Gifts Program of the Albany Medical College.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Energid Systems, Cambridge, USA

    Yi-Je Lim

  2. Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110, 8th Street, Troy, NY, 12180, USA

    Dhanannjay Deo & Suvranu De

  3. Department of Surgery, Albany Medical College, Albany, USA

    Tejinder P. Singh

  4. Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, USA

    Daniel B. Jones

Authors
  1. Yi-Je Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dhanannjay Deo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tejinder P. Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel B. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Suvranu De
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suvranu De.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lim, YJ., Deo, D., Singh, T.P. et al. In situ measurement and modeling of biomechanical response of human cadaveric soft tissues for physics-based surgical simulation. Surg Endosc 23, 1298–1307 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0154-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0154-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation