Advertisement

Magnetic propulsion and ultrasound tracking of endovascular devices

  • 393 Accesses

  • 24 Citations

Abstract

In this paper a robotic means of magnetic navigation of an endovascular device a few millimeters in diameter is presented. The technique, based on traditional computer-assisted surgery adapted to intravascular medical procedures, includes a manipulator for magnetic dragging interfaced with an ultrasound system for tracking the endovascular device. The main factors affecting device propulsion are theoretically analyzed, including magnetic forces, fluidic forces, and friction forces between the endovascular device and the vessel. A dedicated set-up for measuring locomotion, and for navigation with and against the flow, has been developed and preliminary tests have been performed to derive the best configuration for controlled magnetic dragging in the vascular system. Experimental outcomes are consistent with a simple analytical model that analyzes dragging of the magnetic capsule in a tube. By means of this model, different working conditions can be considered to select the appropriate conditions, for example flow rate, coefficient of friction, or magnetic properties.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. 1.

    Naghavi M, Falk E, Hecht HS, Jamieson MJ, Kaul S, Berman D et al (2006) From vulnerable plaque to vulnerable patient-part III: executive summary of the Screening for Heart Attack Prevention and Education (SHAPE) task force report. Am J Cardiol 98(2):2–15

  2. 2.

    Casscells W, Naghavi M, Willerson JT (2003) Vulnerable atherosclerotic plaque–a multifocal disease. Circulation 107(16):2072–2075

  3. 3.

    Bourantas CV, Garg S, Naka KK, Thury A, Hoye A, Michalis LK (2011) Focus on the research utility of intravascular ultrasound-comparison with other invasive modalities. Cardiovasc Ultrasoun 9(2):1–10

  4. 4.

    Chun KRJ, Schmidt B, Köktürk B, Tilz R, Fürnkranz A, Konstantinidou M et al (2008) Catheter ablation-new developments in robotics. Herz 33(8):586–589

  5. 5.

    SenseiTM Robotic Navigation System (2011) [Online] Available: http://www.hansenmedical.com/sensei. Accessed 7 Sept 2011

  6. 6.

    CorPath® 200 System (2011) [Online] Available: http://www.corindus.com/products/CorPath200.aspx. Accessed 9 Sept 2011

  7. 7.

    NiobeTM Remote Controlled Magnetic Navigation System (2011) [Online] Available: http://www.stereotaxis.com/. Accessed 9 Sept 2011

  8. 8.

    Pan Q, Guo S, Okada T (2010) Development of a wireless hybrid microrobot for biomedical applications. Conf Proc IEEE/RSJ Int Conf Intell Rob Syst 2010:5768–5773

  9. 9.

    Fountain TWR, Kailat PV, Abbott JJ (2010) Wireless control of magnetic helical microrobots using a rotating-permanent-magnet manipulator. Conf Proc IEEE Rob Aut 2010:576–581

  10. 10.

    Martel S, Mohammadi M, Lu OZ, Pouponneau P (2009) Flagellated magnetotactic bacteria as controlled MRI-trackable propulsion and steering systems for medical nanorobots operating in the human microvasculature. Int J Robot Res 28(4):571–582

  11. 11.

    Arcese L, Cherry A, Fruchard M, Ferreira A (2010) Optimal trajectory for a microrobot navigating in blood vessels. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Bio Soc 2010:1950–1953

  12. 12.

    Choi H, Choi J, Jeong S, Yu C, Park JO, Park S (2009) Two-dimensional locomotion of a microrobot with a novel stationary electromagnetic actuation system. Smart Mater Struct 18(11):115017–115023

  13. 13.

    Yesin KB, Vollmers K, Nelson BJ (2006) Modeling and control of untethered biomicrorobots in a fluidic environment using electromagnetic fields. Int J Robot Res 25(5):527–536

  14. 14.

    Nelson BJ, Kaliakatsos IK, Abbot JJ (2010) Microrobots for minimally invasive medicine. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 12:55–85

  15. 15.

    Saam T, Hatsukam TS, Yarnykh VL, Hayes CE, Underhill H, Chu BC et al (2007) Reader and platform reproducibility for quantitative assessment of carotid atherosclerotic plaque using 1.5T Siemens, Philips, and general electric scanners. J Magn Reson Imaging 26(2):344–352

  16. 16.

    Kerwin WS, O’Brien KD, Ferguson MS, Polissar N, Hatsukami TS, Yuan C (2006) Inflammation in carotid atherosclerotic plaque: a dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging study. Radiology 241(2):459–468

  17. 17.

    Saba L, Caddeo G, Sanfilippo R, Montisci R, Mallarini G (2007) Efficacy and sensitivity of axial scans and different reconstruction methods in the study of the ulcerated carotid plaque using multidetector-row CT angiography: comparison with surgical results. Am J Neuroradiol 28(4):716–723

  18. 18.

    Whittingham TA (2007) Medical diagnostic applications and sources. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 93(1):84–110

  19. 19.

    Kakkos SK, Stevens JM, Nicolaides AN, Kyriacou E, Pattichis CS, Geroulakos G et al (2007) Texture analysis of ultrasonic images of symptomatic carotid plaques can identify those plaques associated with ipsilateral embolic brain infarction. Eur J Vasc Endovasc 33(4):422–429

  20. 20.

    Schick F (2005) Whole-body MRI at high field: technical limits and clinical potential. Eur Radiol 15(5):946–959

  21. 21.

    Chinzei K, Kikinis R, Jolesz FA (1999) MR compatibility of mechatronic devices: design criteria. Conf Proc Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 1999:1020–1030

  22. 22.

    Xu XC, Hu CH, Sun L, Yen J, Shung KK (2005) High-frequency high frame rate ultrasound imaging system for small animal imaging with linear arrays. Conf Proc IEEE Int Ultrason Symp 2005:1431–1434

  23. 23.

    Ciuti G, Valdastri P, Menciassi A, Dario P (2010) Robotic magnetic steering and locomotion of capsule endoscope for diagnostic and surgical endoluminal procedures. Robotica 28(2):199–207

  24. 24.

    White FH (1991) Viscous fluid flow. McGraw-Hill, New York

  25. 25.

    Simi M, Ciuti G, Tognarelli S, Valdastri P, Menciassi A, Dario P (2010) Magnetic link design for a robotic laparoscopic camera. J Appl Phys 107(9):302–303

  26. 26.

    Prokopovich P, Perni S (2010) Prediction of the frictional behavior of mammalian tissues against biomaterials. Acta Biomater 6:4052–4059

  27. 27.

    Takashimaa K, Shimomuraa R, Kitoua T, Teradaa H, Yoshinakab K, Ikeuchia K (2007) Contact and friction between catheter and blood vessel. Tribol Int 40:319–328

  28. 28.

    Salerno M, Ciuti G, Lucarini G, Rizzo R, Valdastri P, Menciassi A, Landi A, Dario P (2012) A discrete-time localization method for capsule endoscopy based on on-board magnetic sensing. Meas Sci Technol. 23(1). doi:10.1088/0957-0233/23/1/015701

  29. 29.

    Liu J, Spincemaille P, Codella NCF, Nguyen TD, Prince MR, Wang Y (2010) Respiratory and cardiac self-gated free-breathing cardiac CINE imaging with multiecho 3D hybrid radial SSFP acquisition. Magn Reson Med 63(5):1230–1237

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Pisa in the framework of the Micro-VAST project (http://www.microvast.it). The authors wish to thank A. Melani and N. Funaro for their help with manufacture of the equipment, and P. Miloro for his help with development of the equipment. We would like thank P. Valdastri for his suggestions and support and G. Lucarini for providing coefficient of friction values.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Correspondence to A. Menciassi.

Electronic supplementary material

Below are the links to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (WMV 3901 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (WMV 1604 kb)

Supplementary material 1 (WMV 3901 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (WMV 1604 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tognarelli, S., Castelli, V., Ciuti, G. et al. Magnetic propulsion and ultrasound tracking of endovascular devices. J Robotic Surg 6, 5–12 (2012) doi:10.1007/s11701-011-0332-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Magnetic propulsion
  • Ultrasound tracking
  • Vascular surgery
  • Robotics
  • Computer-assisted surgery