Towards Bimanual Operation of Magnetically Actuated Surgical Instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in magnetically actuated surgical instru-ments have reduced the size and increased the dexterity of tools for minimally invasive surgery. However, studies typically focus on evaluating the control of individual instruments during tool development, while few studies examined the deployment of multiple tools, despite the common need for bimanual operations in surgery. When more than one magnetically actuated instrument is positioned in close proximity and controlled with the same magnetic field source, uncoupled and independent control of multiple instruments becomes challenging due to the complex magnetic interactions from the magnetic instruments' interference and the external field actuation. The current paper proposes a novel bimanual operation approach, where one instrument is designed to be actuated using a spatially uniform magnetic field with static directions, and the other instrument is designed to be actuated with a rotating magnetic field. The proposed concept was evaluated with experiments and demonstrated with a simulated bimanual tissue cutting task, using an electromagnetic navigation system and two magnetic tools (a gripper and a pair of scissors) that satisfy the magnetic actuation design requirements. During bimanual operation, experiments showed a 19% gripping force drop of the gripper and less than 10% closing force drop of the scissors, resulting in 35 mN of scissors closing force for cutting.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".