Design and Experimental Demonstration of a Mechatronic Solution for Endovascular Catheters

  • P. N. Brett
  • X. Du
  • M. Z. Assadi
  • F. Rodriguez y Baena
  • F. Liu
  • R. Hinchliffe
  • M. Thompson
Chapter

Abstract

This paper describes a mechatronics approach that provides vascular surgeons with the perception of movement and tissue interaction in the vicinity of the tip of a catheter in endovascular procedures. The current system described is experimental and used in phantom units. It integrates 3D visualization generated from scan with real-time tactile sensing in the vicinity of the tip of the catheter to update on the nature of tissue interaction, the curvature and relative orientation of the catheter sleeve and guide wire. This approach offers superior perception by the clinician, in contrast with current application of catheters used in this application. By being well informed of conditions at the working environment of the catheter tip the clinician will be able to administer therapies with greater precision in the surgical task and within a reduced operating time. The approach will reduce risk for patients and significantly reduce risks for the clinician, who is currently exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation during the process of catheter guidance.

Keywords

Smart robotic device Surgical Catheter 

References

  1. 1.
    National Audit of Percutaneous Coronary Interventional Procedures. 2012. National Audit of Percutaneous Coronary Interventional Procedures Public Report Annual Public Report, British Cardiovascular Intervention Society.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kapur, V., N.R. Smilowitz, and G. Weisz. 2014. Complex robotic‐enhanced percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 83(6): 915–921.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Riga, C.V., C.D. Bicknell, A. Rolls, N.J. Cheshire., and M.S. Hamady. 2013. Robot-assisted fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) using the Magellan system. Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, 24(2):191–196.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kesner, S.B., and R.D. Howe. 2014. Robotic catheter cardiac ablation combining ultrasound guidance and force control. The International Journal of Robotics Research 33 (4): 631–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adeline, S., B. Kramer, P. Chinnadurai, S. Walker, M. O’malley, A. Lumsden, and Bismuth, J. 2016. Flexible robotics with electromagnetic tracking improves safety and efficiency during in vitro endovascular navigation. Journal of vascular surgery.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hedyeh, R., C.J. Payne, and G.-Z. Yang. 2014. Current and emerging robot-assisted endovascular catheterization technologies: a review. Annals of biomedical engineering 42 (4): 697–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fangde, L., C. Burrows, and Rodriguez, y Baena F. 2013. Deformation-as-control for a biologically inspired steerable needle. In Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), 2013 IEEE International Conference, 848–853. Piscataway: IEEE.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tam, B., X. Ma, D.J. Webb, D.J. Holding, and Brett, P.N. 2010. Discriminating contact in lumen with a moving flexible digit using fibre Bragg grating sensing elements. In Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, part H: journal of engineering in medicine 224 (6): 765–774.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. N. Brett
    • 1
  • X. Du
    • 2
  • M. Z. Assadi
    • 2
  • F. Rodriguez y Baena
    • 3
  • F. Liu
    • 4
  • R. Hinchliffe
    • 4
  • M. Thompson
    • 5
  1. 1.University of Southern QueenslandQueenslandAustralia
  2. 2.Brunel UniversityLondonUK
  3. 3.Imperial CollegeLondonUK
  4. 4.University of BristolBristolUK
  5. 5.St. George’s HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations