A Force-Sensing Bipolar Forceps to Quantify Tool–Tissue Interaction Forces in Microsurgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to exert an appropriate amount of force on brain tissue during surgery is an important component of instrument handling. It allows surgeons to achieve the surgical objective effectively while maintaining a safe level of force in tool-tissue interaction. At the present time, this knowledge, and hence skill, is acquired through experience and is qualitatively conveyed from an expert surgeon to trainees. These forces can be assessed quantitatively by retrofitting surgical tools with sensors, thus providing a mechanism for improved performance and safety of surgery, and enhanced surgical training. This paper presents the development of a force-sensing bipolar forceps, with installation of a sensory system, that is able to measure and record interaction forces between the forceps tips and brain tissue in real time. This research is an extension of a previous research where a bipolar forceps was instrumented to measure dissection and coagulation forces applied in a single direction. Here, a planar forceps with two sets of strain gauges in two orthogonal directions was developed to enable measuring the forces with a higher accuracy. Implementation of two strain gauges allowed compensation of strain values due to deformations of the forceps in other directions (axial stiffening) and provided more accurate forces during microsurgery. An experienced neurosurgeon performed five neurosurgical tasks using the axial setup and repeated the same tasks using the planar device. The experiments were performed on cadaveric brains. Both setups were shown to be capable of measuring real-time interaction forces. Comparing the two setups, under the same experimental condition, indicated that the peak and mean forces quantified by planar forceps were at least 7% and 10% less than those of axial tool, respectively; therefore, utilizing readings of all strain gauges in planar forceps provides more accurate values of both peak and mean forces than axial forceps. Cross-correlation analysis between the two force signals obtained, one from each cadaveric practice, showed a high similarity between the two force signals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".