Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery
Published in: International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 10/2019

01-10-2019 | Tremor | Review Article

Toward versatile cooperative surgical robotics: a review and future challenges

Authors: Philipp Schleer, Sergey Drobinsky, Matias de la Fuente, Klaus Radermacher

Published in: International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery | Issue 10/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Surgical robotics has developed throughout the past 30 years resulting in more than 5000 different approaches proposed for various surgical disciplines supporting different surgical task sequences and differing ways of human–machine cooperation or degrees of automation. However, this diversity of systems influences cost as well as usability and might hinder their widespread adoption. In combination with the current trend toward open and modular “plug and play” dynamic networks of medical devices and IT systems in the operating room, a modular human–robot system design with versatile access to cooperative functions with varying degrees of automation on demand is desirable. Therefore, standardized robotic device profiles describing essential functional characteristics of cooperative robotic systems are mandatory.

Methods

Surgical robotics is analyzed from a human–machine interaction perspective to identify generic cooperative robotic device profiles, features and use cases. Therefore, cooperative aspects are introduced from a general point of view. Relevant communication channels used for human–machine interaction are then analyzed, referenced by surgical scenarios. Subsequently, proposed classifications of surgical task sequences and surgical robotic systems are analyzed with a focus on a modular design for cooperative robotics in surgery.

Results

Considerations based on cooperative guidelines are given and features are identified and summarized in a classification scheme used to define distinct generic cooperative robotic device profiles. The latter can be the basis for a modular architecture of future surgical robot systems.

Conclusion

Modular system design can be expanded toward functionalities or different degrees of autonomy, shared or manual control. The proposed device profiles of cooperative surgical robots could lay the foundation for integration into open and modular dynamic “plug and play” networks in the operating room to enhance versatility, benefit-to-cost ratio and, thereby, market spread of surgical robotics.
Literature
1.
Wickens CD (1984) Engineering psychology and human performance. A Bell & Howell Company, Columbus
2.
Taylor RH (2006) A perspective on medical robotics. Proc IEEE 94:1652–1664CrossRef
3.
Luczak H (1993) Prinzipien menschlicher Informationsverarbeitung-Analytik und Gestaltung informatorisch-mentaler Arbeit. In: Arbeitswissenschaft. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 126–213CrossRef
4.
Knight JL (1987) Manual control and tracking. In: Salvendy G (ed) Handbook of human factors. Wiley, New York, pp 182–218
5.
Kwoh YS, Hou J, Jonckheere EA, Hayati S (1988) A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 35:153–160CrossRefPubMed
6.
Dario P, Hannaford B, Menciassi A (2003) Smart surgical tools and augmenting devices. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 19:782–792CrossRef
7.
Moustris GP, Hiridis SC, Deliparaschos KM, Konstantinidis KM (2011) Evolution of autonomous and semi-autonomous robotic surgical systems: a review of the literature. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 7:375–392CrossRef
8.
Tahboub KA (2001) Natural and manmade shared-control systems: an overview. In: Proceeding 2001 ICRA. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. IEEE, Seoul, South Korea, pp 2655–2660
9.
Taylor RH, Menciassi A, Fichtinger G, Dario P (2008) Medical robotics and computer-integrated surgery. In: Siciliano B, Khatib O (eds) Springer handbook of robotics. Springer, Cham, pp 1199–1222CrossRef
10.
Brandt G, Zimolong A, Carrat L, Merloz P, Staudte H-W, Lavallee S, Radermacher K, Rau G (1999) CRIGOS: a compact robot for image-guided orthopedic surgery. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 3:252–260CrossRefPubMed
11.
Shoham M, Burman M, Zehavi E, Joskowicz L, Batkilin E, Kunicher Y (2003) Bone-mounted miniature robot for surgical procedures: concept and clinical applications. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 19:893–901CrossRef
12.
Clark TC, Schmidt FH (2013) Robot-assisted navigation versus computer-assisted navigation in primary total knee arthroplasty: efficiency and accuracy. ISRN Orthop 2013:794827CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Kazanzides P, Zuhars J, Mittelstadt B, Williamson B, Cain P, Smith F, Rose L, Musits B (1992) Architecture of a surgical robot. In: IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, 1992. IEEE, New York, pp 1624–1629
14.
Kazanzides P, Mittelstadt BD, Musits BL, Bargar WL, Zuhars JF, Williamson B, Cain PW, Carbone EJ (1995) An integrated system for cementless hip replacement. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 14:307–313CrossRef
15.
Troccaz J, Peshkin M, Davies B (1998) Synergistic mechanical devices: a new generation of medical robots. In: Hirose S, Shirai Y (eds) Robotics research. Springer, London, pp 317–323CrossRef
16.
Jakopec M, Harris SJ, Rodriguez y Baena F, Gomes P, Davies BL (2003) The Acrobot® system for total knee replacement. Ind Robot An Int J 30:61–66CrossRef
17.
Taylor R, Jensen P, Whitcomb L, Barnes A, Kumar R, Stoianovici D, Gupta P, Wang Z, Dejuan E, Kavoussi L (1999) A steady-hand robotic system for microsurgical augmentation. Int J Rob Res 18:1201–1210CrossRef
18.
Brisson G, Kanade T, DiGioia A, Jaramaz B (2004) Precision freehand sculpting of bone. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. Springer, Berlin, pp 105–112
19.
Follmann A, Korff A, Fuertjes T, Kunze SC, Schmieder K, Radermacher K (2012) A novel concept for smart trepanation. J Craniofac Surg 23:309–314CrossRefPubMed
20.
Niggemeyer M, Müller M, Niesche A, de la Fuente M, Komadinic A, Radermacher K (2012) Modular design of a miniaturized surgical robot system. Biomed Tech Eng 57:261–268
21.
Theisgen L, de la Fuente M, Radermacher K (2018) Modular design of versatile surgical mini-robots. Curr Dir Biomed Eng 4:411–414CrossRef
22.
Spath D, Braun M, Bauer W (2009) Integrated human and automation systems. In: Nof SY (ed) Springer handbook of automation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 571–598CrossRef
23.
Golatowski F, Janss A, Leucker M, Neumuth T (2018) OR. NET-secure dynamic networks in the operating room and clinic. Biomed Eng Technol 63:1–3CrossRef
24.
Pfeiffer JH, Kasparick M, Strathen B, Dietz C, Dingler ME, Lueth TC, Timmermann D, Radermacher K, Golatowski F (2018) OR. NET RT: how service-oriented medical device architecture meets real-time communication. Biomed Eng Technol 63:81–93CrossRef
25.
Janß A, Thorn J, Schmitz M, Mildner A, Dell’Anna-Pudlik J, Leucker M, Radermacher K (2018) Extended device profiles and testing procedures for the approval process of integrated medical devices using the IEEE 11073 communication standard. Biomed Eng Technol 63:95–103CrossRef
26.
Benzko J, Krause L, Janß A, Marschollek B, Merz P, Dell’Anna J, Radermacher K (2016) Modular user interface design for integrated surgical workplaces. Biomed Eng Technol 61:183–197
27.
Flemisch FO, Adams CA, Conway SR, Goodrich KH, Palmer MT, Schutte PC (2003) The H-Metaphor as a guideline for vehicle automation and interaction. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
28.
Abbink DA, Mulder M, Boer ER (2012) Haptic shared control: smoothly shifting control authority? Cogn Technol Work 14:19–28CrossRef
29.
Flemisch F, Heesen M, Hesse T, Kelsch J, Schieben A, Beller J (2012) Towards a dynamic balance between humans and automation: authority, ability, responsibility and control in shared and cooperative control situations. Cogn Technol Work 14:3–18CrossRef
30.
Radermacher K, de la Fuente M, Brandt G, Zimolong A, Schkommodau E, Portheine F, Rau G (2002) Computer-und Robotertechnik für die bildgeführte Orthopädische Chirurgie (Computer and Robot Technology for Image guided Orthopaedic Surgery). at-Automatisierungstechnik Methoden und Anwendungen der Steuerungs-, Regelungs-und Informationstechnik 50:317
31.
de Winter JCF, Dodou D (2011) Preparing drivers for dangerous situations: a critical reflection on continuous shared control. In: 2011 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC). IEEE, New York, pp 1050–1056
32.
Lee JD, Seppelt BD (2009) Human factors in automation design. In: Nof SY (ed) Springer handbook of automation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 417–436CrossRef
33.
Wickens CD, Hollands JG, Banbury S, Parasuraman R (2013) Engineering psychology and human performance. Pearson, London
34.
35.
36.
Radermacher K (1999) Computerunterstützte Operationsplanung und-ausführung mittels individueller Bearbeitungsschablonen in der Orthopädie. Shaker
37.
38.
Weber EH (1978) The sense of touch. Academic Press, Berlin
39.
40.
41.
Wagner CR (2006) Force feedback in surgery: physical constraints and haptic information. Harvard University, Cambridge
42.
Schneider O, Troccaz J (2001) A six-degree-of-freedom passive arm with dynamic constraints (PADyC) for cardiac surgery application: preliminary experiments. Comput Aided Surg 6:340–351CrossRefPubMed
43.
Hagag B, Abovitz R, Kang H, Schmitz B, Conditt M (2011) RIO: robotic-arm interactive orthopedic system MAKOplasty: user interactive haptic orthopedic robotics. In: Rosen J, Hannaford B, Satava RM (eds) Surgical robotics. Springer, Boston, pp 219–246CrossRef
44.
Escobar PF, Knight J, Kroh M, Chalikonda S, Kaouk J, Stein R (2012) Single-port hysterectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection in the porcine model: feasibility and validation of a novel robotic lightweight endoscope positioner. Gynecol Surg 9:97–101CrossRef
45.
Pandalai S, Kavanagh DO, Neary P (2010) Robotic assisted laparoscopic colectomy. Ir Med J 21:1701–1708
46.
Nathan C-AO, Chakradeo V, Malhotra K, D’agostino H, Patwardhan R (2006) The voice-controlled robotic assist scope holder AESOP for the endoscopic approach to the sella. Skull Base 16:123–131CrossRefPubMed
47.
48.
Guthart GS, Salisbury JK (2000) The Intuitive/sup TM/telesurgery system: overview and application. In: Proceedings. ICRA’00. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2000. IEEE, New York, pp 618–621
49.
Lanfranco AR, Castellanos AE, Desai JP, Meyers WC (2004) Robotic surgery: a current perspective. Ann Surg 239:14CrossRefPubMed
50.
Altendorf E, Weßel G, Baltzer M, Canpolat Y, Flemisch F (2016) Joint decision making and cooperative driver–vehicle interaction during critical driving situations. i-com 15:265–281CrossRef
51.
Peon AR, Prattichizzo D (2013) Reaction times to constraint violation in haptics: comparing vibration, visual and audio stimuli. In: World haptics conference (WHC), 2013. IEEE, New York, pp 657–661
52.
53.
Mezger U, Jendrewski C, Bartels M (2013) Navigation in surgery. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 398:501–514CrossRef
54.
Troccaz J, Peshkin M, Davies B (1998) Guiding systems for computer-assisted surgery: introducing synergistic devices and discussing the different approaches. Med Image Anal 2:101–119CrossRefPubMed
55.
Vitiello V, Kwok K-W, Yang G-Z (2012) Introduction to robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery (MIS). In: Gomes P (ed) Medical robotics. Minimally invasive surgery. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–P1
56.
Hoeckelmann M, Rudas IJ, Fiorini P, Kirchner F, Haidegger T (2015) Current capabilities and development potential in surgical robotics. Int J Adv Robot Syst 12:61CrossRef
57.
Cinquin P, Bainville E, Barbe C, Bittar E, Bouchard V, Bricault L, Champleboux G, Chenin M, Chevalier L, Delnondedieu Y (1995) Computer assisted medical interventions. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 14:254–263CrossRef
58.
Davies B (2000) A review of robotics in surgery. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H J Eng Med 214:129–140CrossRef
59.
Follmann A, Korff A, Kunze S, Schmieder K, Radermacher K (2010) Protection of dura mater using a semiautomatic trepanation system. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 5:311–312
60.
Ang WT, Riviere CN, Khosla PK (2001) Design and implementation of active error canceling in hand-held microsurgical instrument. In: Proceedings. 2001 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, 2001. IEEE, New York, pp 1106–1111
61.
Rodriguez y Baena F, Davies B (2010) Robotic surgery: from autonomous systems to intelligent tools. Robotica 28:163–170CrossRef
62.
Digioia AM, Kanade T, Wells P (1996) Final report for the second international workshop on robotics and computer assisted medical interventions. In: Computer aided surgery, pp 69–101
63.
Yang S (2015) Handheld micromanipulator for robot-assisted microsurgery. Dissertation. Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
64.
Wagner A, Pott PP, Schwarz ML, Scharf H-P, Weiser P, Köpfle A, Männer R, Badreddin E (2004) Control of a handheld robot for orthopaedic surgery. IFAC Proc 37:477–482CrossRef
65.
Comparetti MD, De Momi E, De Lorenzo D, Beyl T, Raczkowsky J, Ferrigno G (2012) Safe surgical robotic system and workflow design in the active project for awake neurosurgery. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS, Vilamoura), workshop on safety in human–robot coexistence and interaction: how can standardization and research benefit from each other
66.
Davies B, Starkie S, Harris SJ, Agterhuis E, Paul V, Auer LM (2000) Neurobot: a special-purpose robot for neurosurgery. In: Proceedings. ICRA’00. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2000. IEEE, New York, pp 4103–4108
67.
68.
Strauss G, Koulechov K, Richter R, Dietz A, Trantakis C, Lüth T (2005) Navigated control in functional endoscopic sinus surgery. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 1:31–41CrossRef
69.
70.
Chng C-B, Ho Y, Chui C-K (2015) Automation of retinal surgery: a shared control robotic system for laser ablation. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on information and automation. IEEE, New York, pp 1957–1962
71.
Kang H, Wen JT (2001) Endobot: a robotic assistant in minimally invasive surgeries. In: Proceedings 2001 ICRA. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, 2001. IEEE, New York, pp 2031–2036
72.
Tadano K, Kawashima K, Kojima K, Tanaka N (2010) Development of a pneumatic surgical manipulator IBIS IV. J Robot Mechatron 22:179–188CrossRef
73.
74.
Hagn U, Konietschke R, Tobergte A, Nickl M, Jörg S, Kübler B, Passig G, Gröger M, Fröhlich F, Seibold U (2010) DLR MiroSurge: a versatile system for research in endoscopic telesurgery. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 5:183–193CrossRefPubMed
75.
Hendrix R (2011) Robotically assisted eye surgery: a haptic master console. Tech Univ Eindhoven, Eindhoven
76.
Das H, Ohm TIM, Boswell C, Steele ROB, Rodriguez G (2001) Robot-assisted microsurgery development at JPL. Patent Med 85
77.
Nawrat Z, Kostka P (2008) Robin heart–perspectives of application of mini invasive tools in cardiac surgery. In: Bozovic V (ed) Medical robotics. InTech, London, pp 265–290
78.
79.
80.
Rassweiler JJ, Autorino R, Klein J, Mottrie A, Goezen AS, Stolzenburg J, Rha KH, Schurr M, Kaouk J, Patel V (2017) Future of robotic surgery in urology. BJU Int 120:822–841CrossRefPubMed
81.
Sutherland GR, Latour I, Greer AD (2008) Integrating an image-guided robot with intraoperative MRI. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 27:59–65CrossRefPubMed
82.
Marescaux J, Rubino F (2003) The ZEUS robotic system: experimental and clinical applications. Surg Clin North Am 83:1305–1315CrossRefPubMed
83.
Massie TH (1993) Design of a three degree of freedom force-reflecting haptic interface. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
84.
O’Malley M, Goldfarb M (2002) The effect of force saturation on the haptic perception of detail. IEEE/ASME Trans Mechatron 7:280–288CrossRef
85.
Sutter PH, Iatridis JC, Thakor NV (1989) Response to reflected-force feedback to fingers in teleoperations. In: Proceedings of the NASA conference on space telerobotics, vol 4, pp 65–74
86.
van Oosterhout J, Wildenbeest JGW, Boessenkool H, Heemskerk CJM, de Baar MR, van der Helm FCT, Abbink DA (2015) Haptic shared control in tele-manipulation: effects of inaccuracies in guidance on task execution. IEEE Trans Haptics 8:164–175CrossRefPubMed
87.
Smisek J, van Paassen MM, Schiele A (2015) Haptic guidance in bilateral teleoperation: effects of guidance inaccuracy. In: World haptics conference (WHC), 2015 IEEE. IEEE, New York, pp 500–505
Metadata
Title
Toward versatile cooperative surgical robotics: a review and future challenges
Authors
Philipp Schleer
Sergey Drobinsky
Matias de la Fuente
Klaus Radermacher
Publication date
01-10-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Keyword
Tremor
Published in
International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery / Issue 10/2019
Print ISSN: 1861-6410
Electronic ISSN: 1861-6429
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-019-01927-z

Other articles of this Issue 10/2019

International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 10/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article

User-dependent variability in mitral valve segmentation and its impact on CFD-computed hemodynamic parameters

Original Article

Novel automated vessel pattern characterization of larynx contact endoscopic video images

Original Article

A deep learning framework for efficient analysis of breast volume and fibroglandular tissue using MR data with strong artifacts

Original Article

Tissue classification of oncologic esophageal resectates based on hyperspectral data

Review Article

Deep learning-based digital subtraction angiography image generation

Original Article

Flow-splitting-based computation of outlet boundary conditions for improved cerebrovascular simulation in multiple intracranial aneurysms