Advertisement

Conditions for reliable grip force and jaw angle estimation of da Vinci surgical tools

  • Trevor K. StephensEmail author
  • John J. O’Neill
  • Nathan J. Kong
  • Mark V. Mazzeo
  • Jack E. Norfleet
  • Robert M. Sweet
  • Timothy M. Kowalewski
Original Article
  • 94 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

This work presents an estimation technique as well as corresponding conditions which are necessary to produce an accurate estimate of grip force and jaw angle on a da Vinci surgical tool using back-end sensors alone.

Methods

This work utilizes an artificial neural network as the regression estimator on a dataset acquired from custom hardware on the proximal and distal ends. Through a series of experiments, we test the effect of estimation accuracy due to change in operating frequency, using the opposite jaw, and using different tools. A case study is then presented comparing our estimation technique with direct measurements of material response curves on two synthetic tissue surrogates.

Results

We establish the following criteria as necessary to produce an accurate estimate: operate within training frequency bounds, use the same side jaw, and use the same tool. Under these criteria, an average root mean square error of 1.04 mN m in grip force and 0.17 degrees in jaw angle is achieved. Additionally, applying these criteria in the case study resulted in direct measurements which fell within the 95% confidence bands of our estimation technique.

Conclusion

Our estimation technique, along with important training criteria, is presented herein to further improve the literature pertaining to grip force estimation. We propose the training criteria to begin establishing bounds on the applicability of estimation techniques used for grip force estimation for eventual translation into clinical practice.

Keywords

Grip force estimation Surgical robotics Artificial neural network 

Notes

Funding

Research was sponsored in part by the Army Research Laboratory and was accomplished under Cooperative Agreement No. W911NF-14-2-0035. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Army Research Laboratory or the US Government. The US Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation herein. Additionally, this material is based upon work supported in part by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. 00039202. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

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

Informed consent

This article does not contain patient data.

References

  1. 1.
    Anooshahpour F, Polushin IG, Patel RV (2014) Quasi-static modeling of the da Vinci instrument. In: International conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS). IEEE, pp 1308–1313Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barocas V, Tenorio LM, Devine K, Lee J, Sweet R, Norfleet J, Mazzeo M (2016) A paradigm for materials design for surgical simulators, with specific application to the pleura and needle decompression. J Med Dev 10(3):030934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basdogan C, De S, Kim J, Muniyandi M, Kim H, Srinivasan MA (2004) Haptics in minimally invasive surgical simulation and training. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 24(2):56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De S, Rosen J, Dagan A, Hannaford B, Swanson P, Sinanan M (2007) Assessment of tissue damage due to mechanical stresses. Int J Robot Res 26(11–12):1159–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dockter R, O’Neill J, Stephens T, Kowalewski T (2016) Feasibility of tissue classification via da Vinci endowrist surgical tool. In: Hamlyn symposium on medical robotics, pp 64–65Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Egorov V, Tsyuryupa S, Kanilo S, Kogit M, Sarvazyan A (2008) Soft tissue elastometer. Med Eng Phys 30(2):206–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Foresee FD, Hagan MT (1997) Gauss–Newton approximation to Bayesian learning. IEEE Int Conf Neural Netw 3:1930–1935Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hecht-Nielsen R (1987) Kolmogorov’s mapping neural network existence theorem. In: Proceedings of the international conference on neural networks. IEEE Press, pp 11–14Google Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Jones D, Jaffer A, Nodeh AA, Biyani CS, Culmer P (2018) Analysis of mechanical forces used during laparoscopic training procedures. J Endourol.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0894 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kehoe B, Kahn G, Mahler J, Kim J, Lee A, Lee A, Nakagawa K, Patil S, Boyd WD, Abbeel P, Goldberg K (2014) Autonomous multilateral debridement with the raven surgical robot. In: International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 1432–1439Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim U, Lee DH, Yoon WJ, Hannaford B, Choi HR (2015) Force sensor integrated surgical forceps for minimally invasive robotic surgery. IEEE Trans Robot 31(5):1214–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim U, Kim YB, Seok DY, So J, Choi HR (2016) A new type of surgical forceps integrated with three-axial force sensor for minimally invasive robotic surgery. In: 2016 13th international conference on ubiquitous robots and ambient intelligence (URAI). IEEE, pp 135–137Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kong NJ, Stephens TK, ONeill JJ, Kowalewski TM (2017) Design of a portable dynamic calibration instrument for da Vinci Si tools. In: 2017 design of medical devices conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp V001T11A023–V001T11A023Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kong NJ, Stephens TK, Kowalewski TM (2018) Da Vinci tool torque mapping over 50,000 grasps and its implications on grip force estimation accuracy. In: 2018 international symposium on medical robotics (ISMR). IEEE, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kowalewski TM, Sweet R, Lendvay TS, Menhadji A, Averch T, Box G, Brand T, Ferrandino M, Kaouk J, Knudsen B, Landman J, Lee B, Schwartz B, McDougall E (2016) Validation of the aua blus tasks. J Urol 195(4):998–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC (2004) Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg 239(1):14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee C, Park YH, Yoon C, Noh S, Lee C, Kim Y, Kim HC, Kim HH, Kim S (2015) A grip force model for the da vinci end-effector to predict a compensation force. Med Biol Eng Comput 53(3):253–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li Y, Hannaford B (2017) Gaussian process regression for sensorless grip force estimation of cable-driven elongated surgical instruments. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 2(3):1312–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li Y, Miyasaka M, Haghighipanah M, Cheng L, Hannaford B (2016) Dynamic modeling of cable driven elongated surgical instruments for sensorless grip force estimation. In: International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 4128–4134Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    MacKay DJ (1992) A practical Bayesian framework for backpropagation networks. Neural Comput 4(3):448–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mucksavage P, Kerbl DC, Pick DL, Lee JY, McDougall EM, Louie MK (2011) Differences in grip forces among various robotic instruments and da Vinci surgical platforms. J Endourol 25(3):523–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nakai A, Kuwana K, Saito K, Dohi T, Kumagai A, Shimoyama I (2017) Mems 6-axis force-torque sensor attached to the tip of grasping forceps for identification of tumor in thoracoscopic surgery. In: 2017 IEEE 30th international conference on micro electro mechanical systems (MEMS). IEEE, pp 546–548Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Puangmali P, Althoefer K, Seneviratne LD, Murphy D, Dasgupta P (2008) State-of-the-art in force and tactile sensing for minimally invasive surgery. IEEE Sens J 8(4):371–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shademan A, Decker RS, Opfermann JD, Leonard S, Krieger A, Kim PC (2016) Supervised autonomous robotic soft tissue surgery. Sci Transl Med 8(337):337ra64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stephens T, Kong N, Dockter R, O’Neill J, Sweet R, Kowalewski T (2018) Blended shared control utilizing online identification: regulating grasping forces of a surrogate surgical grasper. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 13(6):769–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stephens TK, Meier ZC, Sweet RM, Kowalewski TM (2015) Tissue identification through back end sensing on da Vinci endowrist surgical tool. J Med Dev Tech Brief 9(3):030939Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yamamoto T, Vagvolgyi B, Balaji K, Whitcomb LL, Okamura AM (2009) Tissue property estimation and graphical display for teleoperated robot-assisted surgery. In: International conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, pp 4239–4245Google Scholar

Copyright information

© CARS 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Simulation and Training Technology CenterArmy Research LaboratoryOrlandoUSA
  3. 3.Department of UrologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations