MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2065601704 · doi:10.1115/1.4027078

Dynamic Calibration Method for Instrumented Laparoscopic Surgical Graspers1

2014· article· en· W2065601704 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Winek, Robert Sweet, Timothy M. Kowalewski

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Medical Devices · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueAnatomy and Medical Technology
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésUpgradeInstrumentation (computer programming)Property (philosophy)Surgical proceduresComputer scienceSystems engineeringMedical physicsSimulationBiomedical engineeringMedicineEngineeringSurgery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The prevalence of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) procedures is on the rise due to the promise of fewer complications; however, these surgeries are more technically difficult and require greater training than their traditional counterparts. To counteract this, surgeons undergo more training and utilize surgical simulators to gain experience without risking patients' health. To increase the accuracy and, therefore, effectiveness of the surgical simulators, tissue property databases have been created, such as the Human Tissue Property Database created by the Center for Research in Education and Simulation Technologies, which test excised tissues postmortem for their mechanical properties [1]. Databases such as this have potential beyond their utilization in simulation and may serve as a platform for automated diagnostic systems capable of characterizing the health of tissues during surgical procedures [2]. Because of the importance to surgical simulation now and in the future of automated diagnostics, tissue property databases must better their accuracy to reflect the complex mechanical behavior of biological samples in vivo [2,3]. This upgrade requires the development of instrumentation capable of collecting data nondestructively in vivo, as well as nonintrusively to a surgical environment.A promising approach to collecting data nondestructively and nonintrusively during surgical procedures is the modification of current MIS tools to contain sensors, and occasionally actuators separate from the operating area [3–6]. Due to the small size of the operating component and the slender connection to the handle, it is not practical to include these additions to the tool anywhere except the handle. Tools, such as the motorized smart endoscopic grasper (MSEG) tool, created by the BioRobotics Lab at the University of Washington, utilize a strain gauge and encoder equipped motor in place of the handle to provide actuation to the jaw and record the stress and strain experienced by the tissue being grasped [6]. Previous efforts to calibrate the MSEG system by the Medical Robotics and Devices Lab at the University of Minnesota have focused on static loading at discrete locations rather than quasi-static loading recorded continuously over a range of the tool's motion [7]. This paper describes the latter method of calibration in order to provide more accurate interpretation of the friction and momentum within the system.With a calibrated instrument capable of recording data in vivo as well as for benchtop testing, it is possible to create a model of tissue property decay with respect to time postmortem. Successfully doing this with a standardized excision and storage procedure can allow accurate in vivo properties to be derived from the abundance of previously collected ex vivo data currently in databases. This ability to back-compute more meaningful information from already available sources promises to have significant impacts on healthcare through higher quality surgical simulations as well as by providing a reference platform for diagnostic equipment to evolve from. Beyond healthcare, the successful modeling of tissue degradation can impact the field of biomechanics by allowing the compilation and utilization of collected data between studies encouraging greater collaboration to occur.To calibrate the instruments, a method was necessary to record dynamic distal grasping force and jaw position and compare it with the recorded force and handle position. To accomplish this, a benchtop platform was created to record data while analysis was done using matlab (MathWorks, Natick, MA). The instrument used in this testing was the instrumented Babcock grasper as used by Sie [7].The distal sensor platform seen in Fig. 1 consisted of a digital caliper (Neiko Tools, China) with a shear load cell rated to 780 g (Phidgets, Calgary, Alberta) attached to each outside jaw via aluminum mounts. Attached to each load cell is an aluminum extension defining the location surgical graspers can squeeze.This system connects to a circuit built around an AD623 Instrumentation Amplifier (Analog Devices, Inc, Norwood, MA) that is connected to a host computer through an Arduino Uno (Smart Projects, Italy) that time stamps the samples and sends them to a serial com capture utility via a USB 2.0 connection.The sensor platform was calibrated with dead weights to a linear fit (Fig. 2).Repeated trapezoidal loading was applied to the instrument, while load and position information were recorded for both the jaw and handle portion of the tool. Multiple separations were set in the calibration caliper to create an effective map of the force mapping. Data sets were time-aligned by finding the scale and offset constants TS and T0 to minimize total error = ∑t|ForceHandle,i-ForceJaw,i|. Figure 3 shows the accuracy of the predicted jaw displacement and force to the measured jaw displacement and force, respectively. Figure 4 shows the FJaw and dJaw response to FHandle and θHandle.The instrumented Babcock grasper was taken to the visible heart lab (VHL) at the University of Minnesota where in vivo compressions could be recorded. The same tissues were then excised and tested at frequent intervals using the same Babcock grasper. Collected data are seen in Fig. 5.Representative preliminary data in Fig. 5 show that there is substantial change in the tissue properties following sacrifice of the animal and excision. We see the in vivo data collection experienced greater resistance to compression. This is shown by larger forces experienced than ex vivo samples for given compressions. Additionally, there is a trend in diminishing mechanical response in the liver present in these recordings. This behavior was representative of changes recorded for multiple tissue types excised from sacrificed porcine specimens made available by collaborators at the VHL. The causes of tissue property decay are widespread, including changes in temperature, environment, and fluid loss [2]. To minimize these changes, common practices include utilization of stabilizing solutions to retard decay and controlling environmental factors to match in vivo conditions as closely as possible; however, time is not a factor that can be controlled so researchers must rush to test samples as soon as possible after sacrifice while attempting to maintain consistent times for each specimen, a task that can be difficult if not impossible due to logistical problems and unforeseen technical obstacles faced when performing experiments on biological samples.The success of the instrumented Babcock grasper in collecting the decay of mechanical properties in porcine tissues is promising; however, further work must be done to develop a robust model capable of accurately predicting change.Future work will address the remaining inaccuracy in the dynamic calibration of the instrumented Babcock grasper as seen in Figs. 2 and 3 to extract more accurate data for tissue property decay model development.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,964
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,274

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,291
Écart entre enseignants0,285 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Medical DevicesMême sujetAnatomy and Medical TechnologyTravaux en français237 207