MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1500775915 · doi:10.1109/icra.2015.7139812

On the feasibility of heart motion compensation on the daVinci® surgical robot for coronary artery bypass surgery: Implementation and user studies

2015· article· en· W1500775915 on OpenAlexafffund
Angelica Ruszkowski, Omid Mohareri, S. Lichtenstein, Richard Cook, Septimiu E. Salcudean

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceCompensation (psychology)Robotic surgeryTrajectoryComputer visionTask (project management)Motion compensationRobotSimulationKinematicsArtificial intelligenceSurgeryMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the implementation of a heart motion compensation system on the da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical Inc.) for coronary artery bypass surgery. By introducing a robot-assisted solution, this surgery could be performed completely minimally invasively and on a beating heart. In this work we describe the development of open loop controllers based on spectral line decomposition and the assumption of a periodic trajectory. This allows the da Vinci patient-side manipulators to track an actual heart trajectory with sub-millimetre error. Further, to simulate a virtually stabilized environment, we present the novel concept of maintaining the camera fixed relative to the heart target, effectively decoupling the vision tracking and arm tracking challenges. Finally, we executed preliminary experiments to evaluate surgeons' ability to perform simulated suturing and peg transfer tasks on a moving target. Performance for the simulated suturing was evaluated based on task completion time, accuracy of needle placement, and number of errors. For the suture task, the number of missed targets decreased from 37% to 13% when compensation was enabled, the number of hit targets increased from 26% to 41%, and completion time decreased. For the peg transfer tasks, again completion time and number of errors were measured. Though the margin for error was larger, there was less perceived difficulty of the task when compensation was enabled.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.205
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207