Advertisement

Semi-autonomous Robotic Anastomoses of Vaginal Cuffs Using Marker Enhanced 3D Imaging and Path Planning

  • M. KamEmail author
  • H. Saeidi
  • S. Wei
  • J. D. Opfermann
  • S. Leonard
  • M. H. Hsieh
  • J. U. Kang
  • A. Krieger
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11768)

Abstract

Autonomous robotic anastomosis has the potential to improve surgical outcomes by performing more consistent suture spacing and bite size compared to manual anastomosis. However, due to soft tissue’s irregular shape and unpredictable deformation, performing autonomous robotic anastomosis without continuous tissue detection and three-dimensional path planning strategies remains a challenging task. In this paper, we present a novel three-dimensional path planning algorithm for Smart Tissue Autonomous Robot (STAR) to enable semi-autonomous robotic anastomosis on deformable tissue. The algorithm incorporates (i) continuous detection of 3D near infrared (NIR) markers manually placed on deformable tissue before the procedure, (ii) generating a uniform and consistent suture placement plan using 3D path planning methods based on the locations of the NIR markers, and (iii) updating the remaining suture plan after each completed stitch using a non-rigid registration technique to account for tissue deformation during anastomosis. We evaluate the path planning algorithm for accuracy and consistency by comparing the anastomosis of synthetic vaginal cuff tissue completed by STAR and a surgeon. Our test results indicate that STAR using the proposed method achieves 2.6 times better consistency in suture spacing and 2.4 times better consistency in suture bite sizes than the manual anastomosis.

Keywords

Medical robotics Image-guided surgery 3D path planning 

References

  1. 1.
    Decker, R.S., Shademan, A., Opfermann, J.D., Leonard, S., Kim, P.C., Krieger, A.: Biocompatible near-infrared three-dimensional tracking system. IEEE Trans. Bio-Med. Eng. 64(3), 549–556 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fullum, T.M., Ladapo, J.A., Borah, B.J., Gunnarsson, C.L.: Comparison of the clinical and economic outcomes between open and minimally invasive appendectomy and colectomy: evidence from a large commercial payer database. Surg. Endosc. 24(4), 845–853 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Le, H.N.D., et al.: Semi-autonomous laparoscopic robotic electro-surgery with a novel 3D endoscope. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 6637–6644, May 2018Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leonard, S., Wu, K.L., Kim, Y., Krieger, A., Kim, P.C.: Smart tissue anastomosis robot (STAR): a vision-guided robotics system for laparoscopic suturing. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 61(4), 1305–1317 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Millbourn, D., Cengiz, Y., Israelsson, L.A.: Effect of stitch length on wound complications after closure of midline incisions: a randomized controlled trial. Arch. Surg. 144(11), 1056–1059 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pedram, S.A., Ferguson, P., Ma, J., Dutson, E., Rosen, J.: Autonomous suturing via surgical robot: an algorithm for optimal selection of needle diameter, shape, and path. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 2391–2398, May 2017Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saeidi, H., et al.: Autonomous laparoscopic robotic suturing with a novel actuated suturing tool and 3D endoscope. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (2019). Accepted for publicationGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Salman, M., Bell, T., Martin, J., Bhuva, K., Grim, R., Ahuja, V.: Use, cost, complications, and mortality of robotic versus nonrobotic general surgery procedures based on a nationwide database. Am. Surg. 79(6), 553–560 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schreiber, G., Stemmer, A., Bischoff, R.: The fast research interface for the KUKA lightweight robot. In: IEEE Workshop on Innovative Robot Control Architectures for Demanding (Research) Applications How to Modify and Enhance Commercial Controllers (ICRA 2010), pp. 15–21. Citeseer (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schulman, J., Gupta, A., Venkatesan, S., Tayson-Frederick, M., Abbeel, P.: A case study of trajectory transfer through non-rigid registration for a simplified suturing scenario. In: 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 4111–4117, November 2013Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sen, S., Garg, A., Gealy, D.V., McKinley, S., Jen, Y., Goldberg, K.: Automating multi-throw multilateral surgical suturing with a mechanical needle guide and sequential convex optimization. In: 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 4178–4185, May 2016Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shademan, A., Decker, R.S., Opfermann, J.D., Leonard, S., Krieger, A., Kim, P.C.W.: Supervised autonomous robotic soft tissue surgery. Sci. Transl. Med. 8(337), 337ra64 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smits, R.: KDL: Kinematics and Dynamics Library. http://www.orocos.org/kdl

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Kam
    • 1
    Email author
  • H. Saeidi
    • 1
  • S. Wei
    • 2
  • J. D. Opfermann
    • 3
  • S. Leonard
    • 2
  • M. H. Hsieh
    • 3
  • J. U. Kang
    • 2
  • A. Krieger
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Electrical and Computer Science Engineering DepartmentJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Sheikh Zayed Institute for Pediatric Surgical InnovationChildren’s National Health SystemWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations