HYPOTHESIS: During robotic milling of the temporal bone, forces on the cutting burr may be lowered by choice of cutting parameters. BACKGROUND: Robotic bone removal systems are used in orthopedic procedures, but they are currently not accurate enough for safe use in otologic surgery. We propose the use of a bone-attached milling robot to achieve the required accuracy and speed. To design such a robot and plan its milling trajectories, it is necessary to predict the forces that the robot must exert and withstand under likely cutting conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We measured forces during bone removal for several surgical burr types, drill angles, depths of cut, cutting velocities, and bone types (cortical/surface bone and mastoid) on human temporal bone specimens. RESULTS: Lower forces were observed for 5-mm diameter burrs compared with 3-mm burrs for a given bone removal rate. Higher linear cutting velocities and greater cutting depths independently resulted in higher forces. For combinations of velocities and depths that resulted in the same overall bone removal rate, lower forces were observed in parameter sets that combined higher cutting velocities and shallower depths. Lower mean forces and higher variability were observed in the mastoid compared with cortical/surface bone. CONCLUSION: Forces during robotic milling of the temporal bone can be predicted from the parameter sets tested in this study. This information can be used to guide the design of a sufficiently rigid and powerful bone-attached milling robot and to plan efficient milling trajectories. To reduce the time of the surgical intervention without creating very large forces, high linear cutting velocities may be combined with shallow depths of cut. Faster and deeper cuts may be used in mastoid bone compared with the cortical bone for a chosen force threshold.
HYPOTHESIS: During robotic milling of the temporal bone, forces on the cutting burr may be lowered by choice of cutting parameters. BACKGROUND:Robotic bone removal systems are used in orthopedic procedures, but they are currently not accurate enough for safe use in otologic surgery. We propose the use of a bone-attached milling robot to achieve the required accuracy and speed. To design such a robot and plan its milling trajectories, it is necessary to predict the forces that the robot must exert and withstand under likely cutting conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We measured forces during bone removal for several surgical burr types, drill angles, depths of cut, cutting velocities, and bone types (cortical/surface bone and mastoid) on human temporal bone specimens. RESULTS: Lower forces were observed for 5-mm diameter burrs compared with 3-mm burrs for a given bone removal rate. Higher linear cutting velocities and greater cutting depths independently resulted in higher forces. For combinations of velocities and depths that resulted in the same overall bone removal rate, lower forces were observed in parameter sets that combined higher cutting velocities and shallower depths. Lower mean forces and higher variability were observed in the mastoid compared with cortical/surface bone. CONCLUSION: Forces during robotic milling of the temporal bone can be predicted from the parameter sets tested in this study. This information can be used to guide the design of a sufficiently rigid and powerful bone-attached milling robot and to plan efficient milling trajectories. To reduce the time of the surgical intervention without creating very large forces, high linear cutting velocities may be combined with shallow depths of cut. Faster and deeper cuts may be used in mastoid bone compared with the cortical bone for a chosen force threshold.
Authors: Stefan Zech; Thomas Goesling; Stefan Hankemeier; Karsten Knobloch; Jens Geerling; Kristof Schultz-Brunn; Christian Krettek; Martinus Richter Journal: Foot Ankle Int Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.827
Authors: Tobias Topp; Thorben Müller; Sebastian Huss; Peter Herbert Kann; Eberhard Weihe; Steffen Ruchholtz; Ralph Peter Zettl Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2012-09-14 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: Neal P Dillon; Ramya Balachandran; J Michael Fitzpatrick; Michael A Siebold; Robert F Labadie; George B Wanna; Thomas J Withrow; Robert J Webster Journal: J Med Device Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 0.582
Authors: Jan-Philipp Kobler; Sergej Wall; G Jakob Lexow; Carl Philipp Lang; Omid Majdani; Lüder A Kahrs; Tobias Ortmaier Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Igor Stenin; Stefan Hansen; M Nau-Hermes; W El-Hakimi; M Becker; J Bredemann; J Kristin; T Klenzner; J Schipper Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Neal P Dillon; Michael A Siebold; Jason E Mitchell; Gregoire S Blachon; Ramya Balachandran; J Michael Fitzpatrick; Robert J Webster Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2016-03-18
Authors: Neal P Dillon; Ramya Balachandran; Antoine Motte Dit Falisse; George B Wanna; Robert F Labadie; Thomas J Withrow; J Michael Fitzpatrick; Robert J Webster Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2014-03-12
Authors: Andy S Ding; Sarah Capostagno; Christopher R Razavi; Zhaoshuo Li; Russell H Taylor; John P Carey; Francis X Creighton Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 2.619