A Comparative Study for Touchless Telerobotic Surgery

Abstract

This chapter presents a comparative study among different interfaces used to teleoperate a robot to complete surgical tasks. The objective of this study is to assess the feasibility on touchless surgery and its drawbacks compared to its counterpart, touch based surgery. The five interfaces evaluated include both touch-based and touchless gaming technologies, such as Kinect, Hydra, Leap Motion, Omega 7 and a standard keyboard. The main motivation for selecting touchless controlling devices is based on direct use of the hands to perform surgical tasks without compromising the sterility required in operating rooms (OR); the trade-off when working with touchless interfaces is the loss of direct force-feedback. However, based on the paradigm of sensory substitution, feedback is provided in the form of sound and visual cues. The experiments conducted to evaluate the different interaction modalities involve two surgical tasks, namely incision and peg transfer. Both tasks were conducted using a teleoperated high dexterous robot. Experiment results revealed that in the incision task, touchless interfaces provide higher sense of control compared with their touch-based counterparts with statistical significance (p < 0.01). While maintaining a fixed depth during incision, Kinect and keyboard showed the least variance due to the discrete control protocol used. In the peg transfer experiment, the Omega controller led to shorter task completion times, while the fastest learning rate was found when using the Leap motion sensor.

Keywords

Gaming technology Robot assisted surgery Touchless control scheme Dexterous movement 

References

  1. 1.
    da Vinci Surgery – minimally invasive robotic surgery with the da Vinci Surgical System. da Vinci Surgery. [Online]. http://www.davincisurgery.com/. Accessed 19 Apr 2014.
  2. 2.
    Rosen J, Hannaford B, Satava RM. Surgical robotics: systems applications and visions. Springer Science and Business Media; 2011.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rautaray SS, Agrawal A. Vision based hand gesture recognition for human computer interaction: a survey. Artif Intell Rev. 2012;43(1):1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    von Hardenberg C, Bérard F. Bare-hand human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 2001 workshop on perceptive user interfaces. New York; 2001. p. 1–8.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schultz M, Gill J, Zubairi S, Huber R, Gordin F. Bacterial contamination of computer keyboards in a teaching hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Off J Soc Hosp Epidemiol Am. 2003;24(4):302–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hartmann B, Benson M, Junger A, Quinzio L, Röhrig R, Fengler B, Färber UW, Wille B, Hempelmann G. Computer keyboard and mouse as a reservoir of pathogens in an intensive care unit. J Clin Monit Comput. 2004;18(1):7–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Weichert F, Bachmann D, Rudak B, Fisseler D. Analysis of the accuracy and robustness of the leap motion controller. Sensors. 2013;13(5):6380–93.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaur AM, Karanveer, Kumar A, Rana DS. Design and development of touch based switching of myo electric arm. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Communication Control and Computing Technologies (ICCCCT). Nagercoil, India; 2010. p. 247–9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoshi T, Takahashi M, Nakatsuma K, Shinoda H. Touchable holography. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2009 Emerging Technologies. New York; 2009. p. 23:1–23:1.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sodhi R, Poupyrev I, Glisson M, Israr A. AIREAL: interactive tactile experiences in free air. ACM Trans Graph. 2013;32(4):134:1–134:10.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Howe RD, Peine WJ, Kantarinis DA, Son JS. Remote palpation technology. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 1995;14(3):318–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Okamura, AM, Verner, LN, Yamamoto, T, Gwilliam, JC, Griffiths, PG (2011). Force feedback and sensory substitution for robot-assisted surgery. In Surgical Robotics Springer US, pp. 419–448.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Prentice R. Drilling surgeons the social lessons of embodied surgical learning. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2007;32(5):534–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lingard L, Reznick R, Espin S, Regehr G, DeVito I. Team communications in the operating room: talk patterns, sites of tension, and implications for novices. Acad Med. 2002;77(3):232–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leap motion | Mac & PC motion controller for games, design, & more. [Online]. https://www.leapmotion.com/. Accessed 28 Apr 2014.
  17. 17.
    Enter the Hydra | RazerTM | for gamers. By Gamers.TM. [Online]. http://www.razerzone.com/minisite/hydra. Accessed 28 Apr 2014.
  18. 18.
    Force dimension – products – omega.7. [Online]. http://www.forcedimension.com/omega7-overview. Accessed 28 Apr 2014.
  19. 19.
    Talamini M, Campbell K, Stanfield C. Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: early experience and system description. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2002;12(4):225–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sengül A, van Elk M, Rognini G, Aspell JE, Bleuler H, Blanke O. Extending the body to virtual tools using a robotic surgical interface: evidence from the crossmodal congruency task. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(12), e49473.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jacob MG, Li Y-T, Wachs JP. A gesture driven robotic scrub nurse. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC). Anchorage, USA; 2011, p. 2039–44.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bach-y-Rita P, Kercel SW. Sensory substitution and the human–machine interface. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003;7(12):541–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carter T, Seah SA, Long B, Drinkwater B, Subramanian S. UltraHaptics: multi-point mid-air haptic feedback for touch surfaces. In Proceedings of the 26th annual ACM symposium on user Interface software and technology. New York; 2013. p. 505–14.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wachs JP, Stern HI, Edan Y, Gillam M, Handler J, Feied C, Smith M. A gesture-based tool for sterile browsing of radiology images. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15(3):321–3.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oikonomidis I, Kyriazis N, Argyros AA. Efficient model-based 3D tracking of hand articulations using Kinect. In: BMVC. 2011. p. 1–11.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ren Z, Yuan J, Zhang Z. Robust hand gesture recognition based on finger-earth mover’s distance with a commodity depth camera. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Multimedia. Scottsdale, USA; 2011. p. 1093–6.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim Y, Leonard S, Shademan A, Krieger A, Kim PC. Kinect technology for hand tracking control of surgical robots: technical and surgical skill comparison to current robotic masters. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(6):1993–2000.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Padoy N. Research homepage of Nicolas Padoy. [Online]. http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~padoy/doku.php/videos. Accessed 28 Apr 2014.
  29. 29.
    Ryden F. Tech to the future: making a ‘Kinection’ with haptic interaction. IEEE Potentials. 2012;31(3):34–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hartmann F, Schlaefer A. Feasibility of touch-less control of operating room lights. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2013;8(2):259–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Johnson R, O’Hara K, Sellen A, Cousins C, Criminisi,A. Exploring the potential for touchless interaction in image-guided interventional radiology. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. New York; 2011. p. 3323–32.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gomez J-B, Ceballos A, Prieto F, Redarce T. Mouth gesture and voice command based robot command interface. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2009. ICRA’09. Kobe, Japan; 2009. p. 333–8.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    John JC. Introduction to robotics: mechanics and control. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1989.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sonka M, Hlavac V, Boyle R. Image processing, analysis, and machine vision. 4th ed. Mason: Cengage Learning; 2014.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nisky I, Hsieh MH, Okamura AM. A framework for analysis of surgeon arm posture variability in robot-assisted surgery. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). Madison, USA; 2013. p. 245–51.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ritter EM, Scott DJ. Design of a proficiency-based skills training curriculum for the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov. 2007;14(2):107–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Industrial EngineeringWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations