Hierarchical Task Networks as Domain-Specific Language for Planning Surgical Interventions

  • Andreas Bihlmaier
  • Luzie Schreiter
  • Jörg Raczkowsky
  • Heinz Wörn
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 302)

Abstract

The following paper addresses the challenges of defining surgical workflows. Surgical workflows have to deal with medical and technical aspects on different levels of abstraction in order to ensure safety. We propose hierarchical task networks (HTN) as a unifying domain-specific language (DSL) for the definition of surgical workflows. The DSL describes relations and dependencies in state sequences and surgical actions for complex workflows on varying levels of detail. With an HTN planner we are able to decompose high-level steps into primitive actions and identify all possible workflows together with their paths through the intervention. This information can be used to identify missing or inaccurate information in literature and consequently improve the workflow and safety of the surgical intervention. By means of a case study we present a detailed HTN-based DSL for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy to show the advantage of using our particular approach to workflow modeling.

Keywords

Surgical workflow Hierarchical task network Domain-specific language Planning 

References

  1. 1.
    Seyed-Ahmad Ahmadi, Tobias Sielhorst, Ralf Stauder, Martin Horn, Hubertus Feussner, and Nassir Navab. Recovery of surgical workflow without explicit models. In Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2006, pages 420–428. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. De Momi, R. Perrone, L. Schreiter, J. Raczkowsky, F. Boriero, M. Capiluppi, and P. Fiorini. Eurosurge workflow: From ontology to surgical task execution. In 3rd Joint Workshop on New Technologies for Computer/Robot Assisted Surgery. Verona, 2013.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Malik Ghallab, Dana Nau, and Paolo Traverso. Automated planning: theory & practice. 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robert Goldman. A semantics for htn methods. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, pages 146–153, 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ronny Hartanto. A Hybrid Deliberative Layer for Robotic Agents. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2011.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Jovic, M. Prcela, and D. Gamberger. Ontologies in medical knowledge representation. In Information Technology Interfaces, 2007. ITI 2007. 29th International Conference on, pages 535–540, 2007.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D Katić, Gunther Sudra, Stefanie Speidel, Gregor Castrillon-Oberndorfer, Georg Eggers, and Rüdiger Dillmann. Knowledge-based situation interpretation for context-aware augmented reality in dental implant surgery. In Medical Imaging and Augmented Reality, pages 531–540. Springer, 2010.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Florent Lalys and Pierre Jannin. Surgical process modelling: a review. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, pages 1–17, 2013.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. MacKenzie, J. A. Ibbotson, C. G. L. Cao, and A. J. Lomax. Hierarchical decomposition of laparoscopic surgery: a human factors approach to investigating the operating room environment. Minimally Invasive Therapy & Allied Technologies, 10(3):121–127, 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marjan Mernik, Jan Heering, and Anthony M. Sloane. When and how to develop domain-specific languages. ACM Comput. Surv., 37(4):316–344, December 2005.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holger Mönnich, Jörg Raczkowsky, and Heinz Wörn. Workflow controlled Robotic Surgery. In Tagungsband der 9. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Computer- und Roboterassistierte Chirurgie, 2010.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Münchenberg, J. Brief, J. Raczkowsky, H. Wörn, S. Hassfeld, and J. Mühling. Operation planning of robot supported surgical interventions. In Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2000. (IROS 2000). Proceedings. 2000 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on, volume 1, pages 547–552, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dana Nau, T-C Au, Okhtay Ilghami, Ugur Kuter, Dan Wu, Fusun Yaman, Héctor Muñoz-Avila, and J William Murdock. Applications of SHOP and SHOP2. Intelligent Systems, IEEE, 20(2):34–41, 2005.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dana S. Nau, Tsz-Chiu Au, Okhtay Ilghami, Ugur Kuter, J. William Murdock, Dan Wu, and Fusun Yaman. SHOP2: An HTN planning system. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR), 20:379–404, 2003.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bernd Neumann and Ralf Möller. On scene interpretation with description logics. Image and Vision Computing, 26(1):82–101, 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dayana Neumuth, Frank Loebe, Heinrich Herre, and Thomas Neumuth. Modeling surgical processes: A four-level translational approach. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 51(3):147–161, 2011.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alan Rector. Medical informatics. In Franz Baader, Diego Calvanese, Deborah L. McGuinness, Daniele Nardi, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider, editors, The Description Logic Handbook, pages 436–457, Cambridge, 2007. Cambridge Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Claudia Reuter, Peter Dadam, Stephan Rudolph, Wolfgang Deiters, and Simon Trillsch. Guarded process spaces (gps): A navigation system towards creation and dynamic change of healthcare processes from the end-users perspective. In Business Process Management Workshops, pages 237–248. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2012.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nathaniel J Soper, Lee L Swanstrom, and Steve Eubanks. Mastery of Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgery: MELS. Wolters Kluwer Health, 2009.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oliver Weede, Frank Dittrich, Heinz Wörn, Brian Jensen, Alois Knoll, Dirk Wilhelm, Michael Kranzfelder, Armin Schneider, and Hubertus Feussner. Workflow Analysis and Surgical Phase Recognition in Minimally Invasive Surgery. In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO 2012), 2012, China, 2012.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Zoliner, M. Pardowitz, S. Knoop, and R. Dillmann. Towards cognitive robots: Building hierarchical task representations of manipulations from human demonstration. In Robotics and Automation, 2005. ICRA 2005. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on, pages 1535–1540, 2005.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Bihlmaier
    • 1
  • Luzie Schreiter
    • 1
  • Jörg Raczkowsky
    • 1
  • Heinz Wörn
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Anthropomatics and Robotics (IAR)Intelligent Process Control and Robotics Lab (IPR), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations